Why examine Romney’s taxes?

[thundercleetz]

People know when they go to a car dealer that they are prey and the dealer wants to bend them over. They don't know that on brokers. Also the there are laws about what a dealer can and can't do to a car buyer.

 

And there are laws about what a broker can and cannot do (Anti-fraud provisions of the Uniform Securities Act). Once again it is sales. When you apply for a mortgage, you have to be aware of predatory lending. When you try to find insurance, you have to do research to make sure you are getting a fair deal.

 

I am not saying it is right, there are plenty of dishonest people in the world in any industry. I am just saying whenever you are "buying" something, you always want to do your research. People should approach buying investment products with the same approach when they walk into a car dealership, do not trust anyone.

[papasmurfbell]

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

 

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

 

How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz25Xouhjl1

 

Still reading it but it is amazing.

[/left]

[cravnravn]

Just solidifys why there wont be a change at the top this election.

[RavenMad]

That is a good read Papa. The banks also have to take some of the blame for allowing this to happen. If the Private Equity firm is taking out the loan to buy a company then the banking rules should be set that the Private Equity firm needs to have the assets to cover the loans. If the firm goes bankrupt then the banks should be able to collect against Bain et al. It makes me sick reading about what they are getting away with.

 

The f'cking Glazers are doing the same thing with Manchester United. How the NFL ever passed them as fit and proper owners of the Bucs I will never know. F'cking parasites.

 

If Romney gets elected you can expect things to not change on Wall Street that is for sure and him and Bain weren't the only ones at it.

[papasmurfbell]

It will get worse on Wall St. Also there is something else that is sick. Say this company is pulling in $100000 in profit a yr. Now they are deducting the interest payment from the profits so teh tax payers sponsor this.

[dc.]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/09/04/exp-point-kremer-love-country.cnn

 

Ms. Kremer:

 

These points are not about President Obama. They are about me.

 

1. Loving my country does not preclude me from criticizing it. I love my country and that, in fact, is precisely why I criticize it. I am hardest on those I love because I expect the most from them, because I expect greatness.

2. Loving my country and having a "global" view are not mutually exclusive. I love my country and I love all humanity. I love humanity in spite of the country it lives in or the regime it lives under.

3. Our founding fathers certainly saw America as being the first nation to take this step forward, as being great. But they most certainly did not seek America to be the only great or forward-thinking nation. The rights they sought to give us were not solely for us, but rather an expression of rights they believed all people should have. I believe their goal was certainly to ensure that America was active in extending those rights to all people, not hoarding them in the name of unmatched greatness.

 

In short, please stop telling me how my world view means I love America less. It certainly is a dog whistle - not for racism, but simply another way to call me "unamerican," "socialist," and somehow "less" than you as a citizen.

[thundercleetz]

http://www.cnn.com/v...ove-country.cnn

 

Ms. Kremer:

 

These points are not about President Obama. They are about me.

 

1. Loving my country does not preclude me from criticizing it. I love my country and that, in fact, is precisely why I criticize it. I am hardest on those I love because I expect the most from them, because I expect greatness.

2. Loving my country and having a "global" view are not mutually exclusive. I love my country and I love all humanity. I love humanity in spite of the country it lives in or the regime it lives under.

3. Our founding fathers certainly saw America as being the first nation to take this step forward, as being great. But they most certainly did not seek America to be the only great or forward-thinking nation. The rights they sought to give us were not solely for us, but rather an expression of rights they believed all people should have. I believe their goal was certainly to ensure that America was active in extending those rights to all people, not hoarding them in the name of unmatched greatness.

 

In short, please stop telling me how my world view means I love America less. It certainly is a dog whistle - not for racism, but simply another way to call me "unamerican," "socialist," and somehow "less" than you as a citizen.

 

Wow angry much? Just kidding, I know how you feel but in a different way. I'll explain:

 

I myself am a registered Republican but there is A LOT with Tea Party I do not agree with (I consider myself more of a libertarian with a good mix of a constitutionalist). While I do admire the "party's" ability to invigorate a rapidly becoming lethargic voting base, I do not like the means they have taken to get to their ends (and the Republican party did need to get its voting base enthusiastic. Obama ran an excellent campaign in 2008 getting a record amount of people to the polls). For example, the video above I am pretty disgraced by. I think it is a low blow to say President Obama is un-American. Quite simply, he just genuinely has a different view for the direction of the country. That does not make him un-American.

 

I myself think President Obama is a good, family guy who is a great role model to the younger generation. I think Obama has good, honest intentions for the country, I just do not agree with many of his political views. When Paul Ryan was selected as Romney's VP candidate, I think President Obama described it best, in a respectful manner, when referring to the difference in opinion:

 

“[Paul Ryan] is a decent man; he is a family man; he is an articulate spokesman for Governor Romney’s vision, but it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with.”

 

There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I actually think it is healthy for the country. What I do not like is the hate that comes from both parties toward the other. I feel like there was a time when two people could have a difference of opinion and still be respectable. What made the Kennedy-Nixon debates great was how civil they were, it was a true debate of two different platforms. No media bias, no dancing around questions. I could be wrong, but I do not remember the crowds booing one candidate or the other. Both candidates presented their views for how to better the country and those who listened to the debate could make an educated informed decision.

 

In my opinion both the conservative and liberal media have created an "us versus them" mentality that spews hate and anger. And we wonder why we are not able to reach a common ground in Congress or the Senate.

 

There is a lot I am embarassed by with my registered party. I read a lot of uneducated, blind, and arrogant opinions out there which I feel like set our party back 150 years and give Republicans a terrible name (Hank Williams Jr. is a prime example). The amount of time attacking Obama's birth certificate and "religion" is ridiculous! It's really unfortunate too, because I feel there are really good Republicans out there with great ideas about how to better our country, such as Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, and even Paul Ryan (I do not agree with all of his views, but I think he is a smart individual with some good ideas).

 

But going back to your original post dc, I feel the same way from the other end of the spectrum. Because I am a conservative my opinion is automatically cast as uneducated, ignorant, and I am treated almost as if I am a greedy, inconsiderate person. Funny story, but in college one of my fraternity brothers and I were complete opposites when it came to politics. We were the same major. He is Jewish, I am Catholic. He is very liberal, I am very conservative. Despite all of this, at the end of one of our economics courses we came to the conclusion "hey, we really agree on a lot more than we disagree on." A lot of our conversations ended up being on the the blind, uneducated stereotypes demonstrated by classmates that embarassed both parties. Once we got beyond that we were really able to have healthy discussions. Bottom line, I think there is a lot of cloudiness out there in the media that is really hindering the progress of our country.

[papasmurfbell]

http://www.cnn.com/v...ove-country.cnn

 

Ms. Kremer:

 

These points are not about President Obama. They are about me.

 

1. Loving my country does not preclude me from criticizing it. I love my country and that, in fact, is precisely why I criticize it. I am hardest on those I love because I expect the most from them, because I expect greatness.

2. Loving my country and having a "global" view are not mutually exclusive. I love my country and I love all humanity. I love humanity in spite of the country it lives in or the regime it lives under.

3. Our founding fathers certainly saw America as being the first nation to take this step forward, as being great. But they most certainly did not seek America to be the only great or forward-thinking nation. The rights they sought to give us were not solely for us, but rather an expression of rights they believed all people should have. I believe their goal was certainly to ensure that America was active in extending those rights to all people, not hoarding them in the name of unmatched greatness.

 

In short, please stop telling me how my world view means I love America less. It certainly is a dog whistle - not for racism, but simply another way to call me "unamerican," "socialist," and somehow "less" than you as a citizen.

 

It is interesting how flumuxed she became with facts. I wonder what she would have said if asked about how David Koch has sponsored the Tea Party.

[cravnravn]

Bill Clinton was on FIRE last night!!!!!!!! Loved every minute of it.

[papasmurfbell]

watching it now. He is so very good at working a crowd.

[dc.]

I don't like character attacks, especially that are unwarranted. And I don't like to say that people are unqualified - it's such a bull term. But I do think it's relevant to note that this woman, apparently representing and leading a large faction of "Tea Party" people spent most of her life as a flight attendant. And she wants to criticize Obama's qualifications ... like his law degree, time as law review editor and law professor? (I am not, here, arguing that he is qualified enough - only that she is a hypocrite)

[papasmurfbell]

Can anyone tell me what Romney studied at Harvard? Anyone? Anyone at all?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/05/romney-attacks-obama-for-going-to-harvard-romneys-alma-mater/#ixzz25j9AvjoN

Of course, Romney actually spent more time at Harvard than Obama. He spent four years there getting his two degrees, one year longer than Obama spent there in law school. New York magazine points out that three of Romney’s sons also attended the Ivy League university for business school.

[thundercleetz]

Am I missing the joke?

[papasmurfbell]

The Romney campain has attacked Obama for being a lawyer who got his law degree from Harvard. Mitt got his law degree there. That is the definition of hypocracy.

[thundercleetz]

The Romney campain has attacked Obama for being a lawyer who got his law degree from Harvard. Mitt got his law degree there. That is the definition of hypocracy.

 

I don't think that is what Romney is implying, but we are getting too blue and red here. I do not want to get into that type of discussion.

[papasmurfbell]

I have seen an ante Obama ad that did condem him for being a lawyer from Harvard. It was a super Pac ad.

[papasmurfbell]

Oh and I do not like either party. I see them both as different sides o0f the same coin. They just have a few small differences that they push their side for. But overall they believe much of the same thing. The largest thing both parties keeping out everyone else.

[dc.]

Cleetz - great post, agree very much. My criticisms are more frequently of the hate than of the policies. There a few times when a policy decision makes me red in the face (war and same sex marriage), but economic policies... I can handle a difference of opinion. I can't handle being called a socialist for thinking taxes are acceptable.

 

On a different note... and this is getting into my true political views to some extent... I can't believe how blind some people are to a past they lived through. This economy crashed in large part because of a series of very bad policy decisions by the previous administration. When asked if people are better off now than before, both Obama and O'Malley (and I can't stand O'Malley!) have said "No, of course not." They were not indicting their own policies or admitting their failure. They were admitting the truth: things are clearly not what they once were. Given that the recession lasted well into 2009, that's no wonder.

 

I consider myself a realist in many ways... do I wish that unemployment was 5%? Of course. Is that a reasonable given the current economic climate? Not in the slightest. It's just not. I would rather a slow, steady, consistent, sustainable expansion and recovery than a miracle recovery that will lead to another bubble and another burst. It took Reagan 4 years to get from 1981-82's 10% unemployment back down to the low 7% range he inherited. If Obama's peak unemployment was in the 10% range in 2010, why do we expect it to be 7% today, less than 2 years later? It's silly.

 

I remember another poster on here (who will remain anonymous unless they choose to reveal themselves) asked on facebook why people are so willing to give up rights to the government. A fair question. I countered wondering why people are so willing to give their lives to multinational corporations, especially when they argue that deregulation is a key to financial success. In some ways, I am sure, deregulation would create a "stronger" economy by many measures. I'm not sure it would create a "better" economy or quality of life of most of us. Regulation can impose some ethics in a world (finance) otherwise devoid.

[papasmurfbell]

DC well said.

[papasmurfbell]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jailed-banker-helped-crack-swiss-142921849.html

Jailed Banker Who Helped Crack UBS Gets $104 Million Payout

 

 

 

Not really about the race except all the people hiding their income with the Swiss.

[papasmurfbell]

Interesting. I don't agree with it all but most of it I am.

[cravnravn]

The question shouldn't even be asked whether we are better off now, that question is posed to me, I havent been happy since Clinton was in office

[RavenMad]

Romney is an self obsessed idiot. He thinks the 47% of Obama voters see themselves as victims that rely on benefits. Perhaps if he hadn't been part of the problem while he was a "venture capitalist" all these people who are relying on help would still have jobs with the companies he forced to close under a mountain of debt.

 

Go ahead America, vote in your next idiot President since Bush II.

[papasmurfbell]

I think he just lost. What I am wondering is how the GOP voter picked the worst guy to run against Obama. Obama is vulnerable but they couldn't find someone to go at him. I think Huntsman or Paul would have distroyed him.

[cravnravn]

I gree Pops, Mitt inserted foot ala Rex Ryan