[kimosABE]

BOSTON — Not long after Mitt Romney dropped out of the presidential race in early 2008, a titan of New York finance, Julian H. Robertson, flew to Utah to deliver an eye-popping offer.

He asked Mr. Romney to become chief executive of his hedge fund, Tiger Management, for an annual salary of about $30 million, plus investment profits, according to two people told of the discussions.

For Mr. Romney, who had spent the previous decade in public life forgoing any paychecks, the position promised to catapult him back to the pinnacle of American business and into the ranks of the stratospherically rich. Several friends and relatives urged him to accept. “Let’s put it this way,” said Mr. Robertson. “He could have made a lot of money.”

But Mr. Romney was uninterested. His mind — and his heart — were elsewhere, still trained in the raw days after his political defeat not on Wall Street but on the White House and an urgent quest: to be understood by an electorate that had eluded him.

From the moment that Mr. Romney ended his first bid for the Republican nomination, he complained to friends, advisers and family that he had felt cheated out of a chance to explain himself to the country. He had emerged from his debut on the national political stage, he told them, as a caricature he did not recognize: emotionally uncaring, intellectually inauthentic, ideologically malleable.

Over the next three years, a little-examined period in his life, he sought to reclaim his public identity with the self-critical eye, marketing savvy and systematic rigor of the corporate consultant that he once was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/us/politics/setback-leads-mitt-romney-to-reinvention.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1partner=rss&emc= rss&src=ig&pagewanted=all&

Mitt worked long and hard to become a BETTER candidate for the 2012 run. But, as this revealing article points out, he almost DIDN'T run.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ask Harry Reid. Unlike Romney who was born into the faith, Reid and his wife joined the Mormon church in college (1960s)

what's your point?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They're important because they give you cold, hard facts about the person you're considering voting for. That's something we otherwise don't really get during a campaign. They tell you something about that person's character in a way that is completely honest, and they show that the candidate is even willing to be honest and to open up themselves for scrutiny.

I disagree. I think they're generally useful for slander and the overwhelming majority of enthusiasts of information like this are detractors in need of as much material for distraction as they can possibly muster. It's okay to agree with Obama here and stay in the spirit of the thread, I hope.

• You don't serve a very public, very large business ownership capacity and entertain several bids for public office because you're scared of putting yourself up for scrutiny. You would have this wrong in spite of very important evidence to the contrary. The taxes don't matter.
• You didn't care about Obama's tax returns.
• You didn't even look at Bush's tax returns and while several shady business dealings were brought to light around Bill Clinton, it didn't matter.
• Tax returns told you exactly nothing about Bush Sr, or Reagan, or Carter, or Nixon... You didn't use tax returns to judge the character, honesty, integrity, or courage of any of these people. Not ever. They're a bright star that burns hot during the early, gossip days of a campaign and quickly fizzles out.

That said, I don't think it's essential that a candidate release their returns.

Whew.

The way that Romney is handling this, however, is nothing other than evasive and dishonest. He clearly, and plainly, refuses to open himself up for scrutiny, which, while it proves nothing, certainly fuels suspicions.

I don't think he's trying to cover anything as much as he's trying to maintain control of the debate. He's an extremely resourceful guy who I'm confident could massage his returns to say just about anything they needed to say for public consumption, usually. We're no longer talking about the perception the collective would come to on their own, but a climate among the opposition today that would stop at nothing to stretch every association and every exchange into bloodletting snow seal pups. Romney doesn't have to play that game and he doesn't have to relinquish control of the debate. I don't think he's shameless enough that he would employ his resources to massage-away something he's actually proud of, but is very personal to him. So... he simply does not release them. He doesn't have to. I mean, the returns have already passed IRS muster which should count for something right? After that, the only useful information left is slander which IMO distorts the debate. If Romney wants to win, I'm almost entirely convinced his absolute best shot is to keep 'em to himself. The only purpose they serve at this point is to distract from the issues that really do matter.

However I suspect that this won't really hurt him in the polls. It may actually help. It will endear him to the less thoughtful of the libertarian-leaning voters who will think that Romney's reluctance to release his own tax returns will translate somehow to him being willing to adjust the system to keep the public (read: government) out of their own (comparatively very meager) finances. It won't, of course, but people will talk themselves into believing it anyway.

I think this is a stretch. Conversely, I think they appeal to the less thoughtful who want to see them released so the slander can be packaged and spoonfed them by shills and zealots with megaphones in the hopes that the numbers will somehow work out on election day in spite of the worst record an incumbent has ever had to face.

I do find it interesting, that to the extent that's he's given in at all, he's released only very limited information about a single year of this taxes. There's a problem with that, namely that, 'Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much… One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul'.

Are you more aware of tax law than the IRS? The only suitable and for that matter, accredited apparatus for making such a judgement has access to all of them. Detractors are not concerned at all with Romney himself, they're interested in every business name he exchanged funds with, no matter how layered or disconnected he is from them be it 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 7... it doesn't matter. They're interested in just how much he gives to his church so they can demagogue Mormonism for the intolerant among us. The most thoughtful believe this election is too important for Romney to squander important opportunities for framing the differences between he and the incumbent by rolling around in the weeds of the Cayman Islands or defending the sordid history of the Mormon faith.

That happens to be a direct quote from George Romney, Mitt's father. He also happens to have been the first Presidential candidate to release his tax returns: he released 12 years of them to counteract the aforementioned problem.

He didn't run as effective a campaign in many respects, we don't do everything our fathers did, and times have changed.

From what I can tell, George Romney is exactly the sort of man I would have wanted to elect as my President. His son, however, has deviated from his father's course in many, not particularly attractive ways.

It's the politics and George Romney is not running for President. Those who would vote for Romney are going to vote for Romney, those who won't will not. The only risk Mitt Romney takes at this point among the remaining undecideds is allowing a diversion from the important differences between he and the President.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

do you know what mormons believe?
doesn't matter to me cause i think any religion is silly

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ask Harry Reid. Unlike Romney who was born into the faith, Reid and his wife joined the Mormon church in college (1960s)

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what's your point?

My point is those who question Romney for being a Mormon have no problem with Reid. Romney was born into the faith. Unlike Romney, Reid CHOSE to beome a Mormon as an adult,in the 1960's, when blacks were still prohibited from becoming clergy.

As to Ironknee's question: My family has lived in Arizona/New Mexico region for over 400 years. My father was born in the same town as Morris Udahl. (St Johns) My mother was born in neighboring town. (Concho). St Johns is still 1/2 Mormon, 1/2 Mexican (Catholic). So yes We do know what Mormons belive. Timothy Cardinal Dolan, President of the USCCB said long before Romney became the (R) nominee "There may many reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney, being Mormon is NOT one of them"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Same reason Obama was elected. America took a collective hit off the crack pipe and forgot that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Have you ever had that drunk friend that would do whatever everyone suggested to them, just to be liked and considered cool? Yeah, that was America and the alcohol was Bush-hate.

How does this address the question in any way?

The question was not "why was Obama elected and not McCain", the question was "if Romney was a better candidate than McCain, why didn't he get the nomination".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

My point is those who question Romney for being a Mormon have no problem with Reid. Romney was born into the faith. Unlike Romney, Reid CHOSE to beome a Mormon as an adult,in the 1960's, when blacks were still prohibited from becoming clergy.

Why the qualifier about when Reid became a Mormon?

Is Romney's religion somehow superior because he was indoctrinated from birth as opposed to making his own choice?

[andi*pandi]

I don't care that he's mormon, any more than if he were catholic. Didn't even know what religion Reid was until mentioned here.

In fact, I wish I didn't know or hear which religion any politician is, as long as they don't legislate their personal religions I don't care. Shouldn't matter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In fact, I wish I didn't know or hear which religion any politician is...

How's that working for you?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why the qualifier about when Reid became a Mormon?
Is Romney's religion somehow superior because he was indoctrinated from birth as opposed to making his own choice?

No. Someone posted Romney needs to expalin why he is a member of a church that did not allow blacks to be clergy until the 1970's. (amoung other things). I don't recall Reid being asked that prior to his being elected majority leader of the US Senate. As senate majoirty leader, he controls the agenda in the senate. Reid was raised agnostic. He and his wife joined the LDS while in college. Did they join the LDS because blacks were not permited in the clergy? I don't know, and AFAIK, no one has asked Reid.

[andi*pandi]

lalalala

[Waragainstsleep]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Great article.

[turtle777]

Shit, Romney will not save this country, nor the GOP, nor the presidency.

He's an unprincipled technocrat, and will flip-flop on "change" just as much as Obama did.

I'd rather see Obama fail for another 4 years, just so he can't f*cking blame Bush anymore.

Then we night get a true revolution, and not a scumbag corrupt two-party autocrazy(sic!) that we have today.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Shit, Romney will not save this country, nor the GOP, nor the presidency.
He's an unprincipled technocrat, and will flip-flop on "change" just as much as Obama did.
I'd rather see Obama fail for another 4 years, just so he can't f*cking blame Bush anymore.
Then we night get a true revolution, and not a scumbag corrupt two-party autocrazy(sic!) that we have today.
-t

This. I may not agree with you on the how, but I agree that a 2-party system cannot work; it essentially enables a collusion monopoly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Shit, Romney will not save this country, nor the GOP, nor the presidency.
He's an unprincipled technocrat, and will flip-flop on "change" just as much as Obama did.
I'd rather see Obama fail for another 4 years, just so he can't f*cking blame Bush anymore.
Then we night get a true revolution, and not a scumbag corrupt two-party autocrazy(sic!) that we have today.
-t

I've been wondering what your thoughts have been on how Ron Paul has been treated by the Conservative party since the Romney nomination with the whole delegates thing, him not speaking at the RNC infomercial, etc.?

Not only does the GOP seem to have a problem with minority voters, but they seemed to be in the process of alienating the passionate Ron Paul base.

[Waragainstsleep]

These are hilarious:

http://www.funnyordie.com/slideshows/b4a3845bc1/the-12-best-pictures-of-little-face-mitt#slide10

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

This. I may not agree with you on the how, but I agree that a 2-party system cannot work; it essentially enables a collusion monopoly.

Can you show me where merely adding parties fixes problems? I keep hearing about how badly our two-party system is destroying political affairs in the US while the multiple party systems of other nations fall into bickering over organized Labor under the government vs Private enterprise or spending vs cutting.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've been wondering what your thoughts have been on how Ron Paul has been treated by the Conservative party since the Romney nomination with the whole delegates thing, him not speaking at the RNC infomercial, etc.?

How has he been regarded by the GOP? As a guy with a strong degree of Constitutional principle and great ideas of fiscal discipline behind his rhetoric while stuffing as much pork into bills as possible for his State and then falling into the minority of "no" votes at passage time so he can take a whole lot of Federal loot home while claiming he opposed it. There's also failed leadership. There are ways of supporting or opposing policies without looking batsh!t crazy, but unfortunately for Paul -- he is. For example, “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” which of course would've done wonders for anyone in the GOP trying to shirk the "racist" or "mean-spirited" tag, but then he goes on to say -- "“In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.” Of course, before requesting $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.” It's kind of hard to separate yourself from Washington when you are an active part of their problem.

Not only does the GOP seem to have a problem with minority voters, but they seemed to be in the process of alienating the passionate Ron Paul base.

That's the problem with passion, it's all heart and no head. It's all fired up while things are contentious and then fails to appear on election day and I dare say; aside from legalizing pot -- I'm not sure they have the political savvy to know about the other 99.9% of the things he's railing against on a given day. The GOP is a large tent with a diversity of opinions. The ones who get alienated are the ones who can't express themselves in such a way that appear reasoned, sober, sensible, and electable. You can't change things by garnering 5% of the populace and at some point that becomes your problem, not the problem of the collective.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

This article actually does sell me on Romney. If our only choice on the Republican side are rich people or the religious right, I'd pick the rich guy every time. They are much more pragmatic. They would be much more willing to make compromises (as long as they still get paid). Compare this with our last Republican President, whose faith led him to many wrong decisions with the certainty of the True Believer. This reinforces my opinion that Predicent Romney will run to the Center immediately after taking office,

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah, I'd go for rich over devout if that was the choice too.

[kimosABE]

"In many ways Romney is the best qualified candidate in decades to take on a stuttering US economy."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2194899/ALEX-BRUMMER-In-ways-Romney-best-qualified-candidate-decades-stuttering-US-economy.html

EDIT:

Douglas Band, former President Bill Clinton’s top aide, plans to vote for Mitt Romney in November, according to a report in The New Yorker.

In an extensive article on the complicated and often unpleasant relationship between Bill Clinton and President Obama, the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reports that Band intends to cast his ballot for the former Massachusetts governor this fall.

“According to two people with direct knowledge, Douglas Band has said that he will vote for Romney,” Lizza writes. “Band declined to comment."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/report-bill-clintons-closest-political-adviser-voting-for-romney/

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. I think they're generally useful for slander and the overwhelming majority of enthusiasts of information like this are detractors in need of as much material for distraction as they can possibly muster. It's okay to agree with Obama here and stay in the spirit of the thread, I hope.

• You don't serve a very public, very large business ownership capacity and entertain several bids for public office because you're scared of putting yourself up for scrutiny. You would have this wrong in spite of very important evidence to the contrary. The taxes don't matter.
• You didn't care about Obama's tax returns.
• You didn't even look at Bush's tax returns and while several shady business dealings were brought to light around Bill Clinton, it didn't matter.
• Tax returns told you exactly nothing about Bush Sr, or Reagan, or Carter, or Nixon... You didn't use tax returns to judge the character, honesty, integrity, or courage of any of these people. Not ever. They're a bright star that burns hot during the early, gossip days of a campaign and quickly fizzles out.

Whew.

I don't think he's trying to cover anything as much as he's trying to maintain control of the debate. He's an extremely resourceful guy who I'm confident could massage his returns to say just about anything they needed to say for public consumption, usually. We're no longer talking about the perception the collective would come to on their own, but a climate among the opposition today that would stop at nothing to stretch every association and every exchange into bloodletting snow seal pups. Romney doesn't have to play that game and he doesn't have to relinquish control of the debate. I don't think he's shameless enough that he would employ his resources to massage-away something he's actually proud of, but is very personal to him. So... he simply does not release them. He doesn't have to. I mean, the returns have already passed IRS muster which should count for something right? After that, the only useful information left is slander which IMO distorts the debate. If Romney wants to win, I'm almost entirely convinced his absolute best shot is to keep 'em to himself. The only purpose they serve at this point is to distract from the issues that really do matter.
I think this is a stretch. Conversely, I think they appeal to the less thoughtful who want to see them released so the slander can be packaged and spoonfed them by shills and zealots with megaphones in the hopes that the numbers will somehow work out on election day in spite of the worst record an incumbent has ever had to face.
Are you more aware of tax law than the IRS? The only suitable and for that matter, accredited apparatus for making such a judgement has access to all of them. Detractors are not concerned at all with Romney himself, they're interested in every business name he exchanged funds with, no matter how layered or disconnected he is from them be it 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 7... it doesn't matter. They're interested in just how much he gives to his church so they can demagogue Mormonism for the intolerant among us. The most thoughtful believe this election is too important for Romney to squander important opportunities for framing the differences between he and the incumbent by rolling around in the weeds of the Cayman Islands or defending the sordid history of the Mormon faith.
He didn't run as effective a campaign in many respects, we don't do everything our fathers did, and times have changed.
It's the politics and George Romney is not running for President. Those who would vote for Romney are going to vote for Romney, those who won't will not. The only risk Mitt Romney takes at this point among the remaining undecideds is allowing a diversion from the important differences between he and the President.

So the whole of this post basically boils down to "It's politics." That's a pretty weak reason, isn't it?

If someone is completely in compliance in their taxes I don't see how their tax returns could be a bad thing (Do we have past precedent on this?). Pinning the blame on the opposing campaign is gutless and shifty.

I think George Will summed it up best: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” I think that says a lot.

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So the whole of this post basically boils down to "It's politics." That's a pretty weak reason, isn't it?
If someone is completely in compliance in their taxes I don't see how their tax returns could be a bad thing (Do we have past precedent on this?). Pinning the blame on the opposing campaign is gutless and shifty.
I think George Will summed it up best: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” I think that says a lot.

Nothing in his tax returns would disqualify him from legally assuming the office of POTUS.

Can Obama say that nothing in the past he's hidden and hiding would legally prevent HIM from being President?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So the whole of this post basically boils down to "It's politics." That's a pretty weak reason, isn't it?

It's certainly an election and elections are not only important to the candidates, they're political. Is your view that it is weak something more than political?

If someone is completely in compliance in their taxes I don't see how their tax returns could be a bad thing (Do we have past precedent on this?). Pinning the blame on the opposing campaign is gutless and shifty.
I think George Will summed it up best: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” I think that says a lot.

If the message is so clear, did George Will offer any specifics or am I supposed to just assume it must be dubious? I think this shows a lack of imagination. What if Romney has literally thousands of business associates and cannot afford to be an official spokesperson for each while watching them waste their hard-earned money trying to maintain a positive image through the slander machine? Of course it's political, it's an election.

I just don't think the reasons for seeing them are very strong either.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Nothing in his tax returns would disqualify him from legally assuming the office of POTUS.
Can Obama say that nothing in the past he's hidden and hiding would legally prevent HIM from being President?

lol! Nice FUD bomb!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kimosABE 

Nothing in his tax returns would disqualify him from legally assuming the office of POTUS.
Can Obama say that nothing in the past he's hidden and hiding would legally prevent HIM from being President?

Maybe in his tax returns where they ask for his country of citizenship he filled in "Kenya"?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

This article actually does sell me on Romney. If our only choice on the Republican side are rich people or the religious right, I'd pick the rich guy every time. They are much more pragmatic. They would be much more willing to make compromises (as long as they still get paid). Compare this with our last Republican President, whose faith led him to many wrong decisions with the certainty of the True Believer. This reinforces my opinion that Predicent Romney will run to the Center immediately after taking office,

He'll start running to the centre in a few weeks. With the terrible performance of his campaign so far, there's no way he can maintain the current hate machine.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

He'll start running to the centre in a few weeks. With the terrible performance of his campaign so far, there's no way he can maintain the current hate machine.

I don't know. If he turns on the far right, maybe they don't show up to vote? I don't see the moderate right getting terribly excited about Romney either.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's certainly an election and elections are not only important to the candidates, they're political. Is your view that it is weak something more than political?

I think it's utterly spineless and a poor reflection of character. The implication is the Obama campaign will spin this, but assuming the facts are on Romney's side, I don't see the issue as being a large one. Second, if he's this uncooperative regarding personal legal matters how am I supposed to be heartened about his administrations potential?


I asked before, is there precedent for tax returns being used against a candidate? Because that's the other reason this reads as so odd. When was the last time a President got burned by his own taxes? Or am I to believe all previous campaigns were saintly in comparison to Obama's team?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the message is so clear, did George Will offer any specifics or am I supposed to just assume it must be dubious? I think this shows a lack of imagination.

I think the merit is using simple business logic that Romney would likely employ to arrive to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if Romney has literally thousands of business associates and cannot afford to be an official spokesperson for each while watching them waste their hard-earned money trying to maintain a positive image through the slander machine?

What if? Is Romney proud of his business record or not? Is he willing to bear the associated costs of running for the highest office or not? The answer to both so far appear to be no. The first is hypocritical, the second reflects poorly on his determination.

If you can't afford or are reluctant to reveal who you do business with, again, it reflects poorly on you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I just don't think the reasons for seeing them are very strong either.

No need to repeat this, I think we know where we both stand regarding the strength of the reasons.

[Chongo]

The government unites us?



[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw[/VIDEO]

[kimosABE]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Th government unites us?
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLa9Te8Blw[/VIDEO]

This is VERY important for everyone to know.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

• Successful businessman with a wealth of experience and intricate knowledge of the system

That one. It's a big one.

I think the other one shows that he understands the health care issue, but I'd probably stay away from it as much of a strong point. The Mass. system has turned to crap slowly over the intervening years, regardless of how many "uninsured" it eventually covered.

[finboy]

This is VERY important for everyone to know.

But the government IS the only thing that we all have in common. Except for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and American Exceptionalism and a few other advantages. But since a whole bunch of the Democrat constituency doesn't understand those things, this may be all they've got to hang a hat on. The "vunnerables" may not respond to anything else.

[besson3c]

This might be a bit of a thread derail, but how about this as a supplementary question:

Sell me on modern Republican economics without mentioning Obama or the Democrats. What evidence is there to support that they work without racking up debt? Again, I'm not inferring anything, just asking this question directly since many right wingers are obviously so fervent about their economic ideology

[subego]

The way you deal with debt is by cutting budgets.

Simple, no?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The way you deal with debt is by cutting budgets.
Simple, no?

Are you playing devil's advocate?

I mean Dark Lord's advocate?

[subego]

In the sense I'm not a Republican.

My economic philosophy has some overlap though.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

In the sense I'm not a Republican.
My economic philosophy has some overlap though.

So is that your position?

[subego]

Yes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes.

I'd disagree with it then. *A* way you deal with debt is by cutting budgets, not *the* way.

Besides, this is more a possible summary of modern Republican economic ideology, not evidence of it working.

[subego]

Give me a different method.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

The way you deal with debt is by cutting budgets.
Simple, no?

If you cut spending, but income falls by the same amount, then have you really dealt with the debt? It's not just a spending issue, you have to pay attention to both sides of the ledger.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think it's utterly spineless and a poor reflection of character. The implication is the Obama campaign will spin this, but assuming the facts are on Romney's side, I don't see the issue as being a large one. Second, if he's this uncooperative regarding personal legal matters how am I supposed to be heartened about his administrations potential?

You wouldn't be heartened by Romney's potential, but then you wouldn't have been anyway. I honestly don't think the taxes have a thing to do with it. I'm fully convinced that if this were the other way around and an (R) incumbent was competing against a wealthy (D) business tycoon reluctant to release his returns; the arguments would be that the Republicans are just angry a (D) with a wealth of personal and professional success would dare challenge the (R) administration on their failures in the private sector, that the angry (R) administration is accusing the (D) of being criminal, and that this is all an attempt to distract folks from an abysmal record. At best, you'd be entirely silent on the matter. At worst you'd be ardently defending the one reluctant to release his tax returns. It is an election between two candidates and if transparency were really as important to you as you claim and you're at least moderately informed on current affairs, you wouldn't be defending one of these candidates against the other. Trust me, you'd be writing in Homer Simpson.

I asked before, is there precedent for tax returns being used against a candidate? Because that's the other reason this reads as so odd. When was the last time a President got burned by his own taxes? Or am I to believe all previous campaigns were saintly in comparison to Obama's team?

I don't think it has as much to do with Obama specifically as it does the state of politics today in general. A campaign is infinitely more resourceful than in the past, endowed with a great deal more funds, and particularly hungry to defend a profoundly bad performance. These all add up to desperate times and desperate measures.

I think the merit is using simple business logic that Romney would likely employ to arrive to that conclusion.

Perhaps both you and George are lacking imagination then. I can think of several reasons a candidate wouldn't want to release their tax returns having zero to do with whether or not they've broken the law or generally lack integrity. Again, a lot was made from remarkably little in connecting Romney to the death of an insured woman who happened to have been married to a man that was let go from a company Romney left 7 years prior.

What if? Is Romney proud of his business record or not? Is he willing to bear the associated costs of running for the highest office or not? The answer to both so far appear to be no. The first is hypocritical, the second reflects poorly on his determination.
If you can't afford or are reluctant to reveal who you do business with, again, it reflects poorly on you.

From everything I've heard, Romney is proud of his business record and is bearing the associated costs of running and by the way, the risk of keeping his returns between himself and the IRS. I believe it's calculated. He has a very limited amount of time for truly framing the differences between he and the incumbent, there's no reason his campaign needs to defend his unique contributions to a curious religion, or roll around in the weeds of the Cayman Islands, or defend Swiss banking against the nature of a global economy, or explain the dealings of every business he's ever associated with for what they did or did not do years before and/or after Romney had anything to do with them. This all takes time and when you fail to defend yourself against the slander, it begins to take its toll on your favorables as if you have something to hide and when you do defend yourself against the slander, you're not addressing the important differences between you and the incumbent. You, not unlike everyone else here, will have made your choice in November having absolutely nothing to do with a tax return. Which is probably as it should be anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Give me a different method.

Keeping the budget the same yet allocating those existing funds smarter, investing in new infrastructure to support new businesses, tax payers, and GDP boosters, tax cuts as a means to stimulate spending, reform of an existing program so that it works more effectively without funding adjustments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Keeping the budget the same yet allocating those existing funds smarter...

This is what I thought, you've dropped the question you asked already.

You asked how does one follow Republican economic policy without racking up debt.

How does spending the exact same amount of money we were before, with the exact same income, address our debt issue, at all?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is what I thought, you've dropped the question you asked already.
You asked how does one follow Republican economic policy without racking up debt.
How does spending the exact same amount of money we were before, with the exact same income, address our debt issue, at all?

Because debt is the result of spending more than we are earning. In theory if we increase what we are earning and leave our spending the same, debt decreases over time.

[subego]

From whence doth these increased earnings spring?

[iBeam]

Originally Posted by subego 

From whence doth these increased earnings spring?

Tax the rich and close the loopholes that allow the rich to avoid paying taxes.

[subego]

That's not Republican philosophy, which is what is being discussed.

[iBeam]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's not Republican philosophy, which is what is being discussed.

Which is as good of a reason as any why we should not elect them. They don't care about real solutions to the economic hardships of average Americans. They don't want to right any wrongs, they just want power for their own selfish greed.