“...What earthly power can make Mitt Romney release his tax returns? None whatsoever. Incredible as it may seem, it’s true: He can go all the way to November 6 without giving an inch, and there’s not one thing anyone can do about it. He pretty obviously thinks that the heat he’s taking for sitting on the returns is more bearable than the heat he’d have to endure by releasing them. And that calculation says something astonishing about the man, and ultimately, that is the issue here—this is far more about Romney’s character than it is about the money per se. And character is very quickly becoming the issue that the Obama camp hadn’t even planned on exploiting but now must, because Romney’s lack of it has become so obvious….”
Mitt Romney is now refusing to release his tax returns because he is not a business. He is a person. Ergo, according to Mitt, who thinks that businesses are “people” (rather like Soylent Green) then businesses don’t need to release their tax returns, either.
Is it possible that Harry Reid is not lying? The Pink Flamingo figures there is a 95% chance that his veracity could be questioned, but what if he is right? Then again, if the most recent revelations are true, about Romney and the Son of Boss Scandal are true…. well, maybe Harry Reid is not lying.
If Mitt Romney is persona non grata in Italy for Bain and tax dodging, doesn’t that say something about his intentions here in the US?
Peter Beinart wrote the following for Daily Beast:
“…Harry Reid isn’t the problem. Yes, the Senate majority leader shouldn’t go around accusing Mitt Romney of paying no taxes unless he can provide proof. But let’s assume that he’s right: that Romney legally evaded paying taxes and parked vast sums in offshore accounts. It still doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant to Romney’s fitness to be president.
If Romney broke the law, he’s a criminal. If, however, as the Democrats charge, he legally gamed the tax code in order to pay as little money as possible, he’s a typical American. Ask yourself this question: when tax time comes around do you a) ask yourself what’s fair to pay given your circumstances and the country’s needs; b) try to figure out how to pay as little as possible, often with the help of an accountant. If the answer is b, you and Romney basically did the same thing. Sure, he had better accountants and thus likely saved himself more money. But you both put your own self-interest ahead of the country’s, which is what most people do most of the time….”
Much has been made about Mitt Romney’s brilliant career at Bain Capital. That’s nice. He was a vulture capitalist who knew how to make the big bucks destroying and pocketing the benefits, sending them off shore into what may allegedly be illegal tax shelters. That’s brilliant. He’s an economic genius.
That’s the selling point when it comes to why Mitt Romney was pushed on an increasingly brainwashed conservative GOP base. It’s all about the economic genius of Mitt Romney. He’s the economic messiah who is going to save the US from Barack Obama and the liberals.
Everyone believed it.
What if, though, he’s not all that smart and not all that much of a genius.
“...But Sufi and Bordo disagree on what should have been done. “If the problem is housing, then the market needs to clear, and when the market needs to clear, it needs minimal amount of government intervention,” says Bordo. But when I probed whether Bordo was implicitly criticizing the Obama administration’s housing policies, he essentially shrugged. “We didn’t have massive government intervention in it anyway,” he says.
Sufi’s argument leads to a clearer critique of the Obama administration. He points to a Bloomberg column where he argued that “in both the data and the theory, the critical problem is the high level of debt in the household sector. So why doesn’t macroeconomic policy directly combat this problem?” Sufi goes on to advocate a program of debt forgiveness, though he admits that designing such a program effectively is very difficult. But while the Obama administration has been tepidly supportive of plans to reduce principal for underwater borrowers, the Romney campaign opposes it.
Indeed, the Romney campaign doesn’t have a housing policy at all. “Housing” isn’t one of the issues on their Web site. The word is only mentioned twice in their 160-page economic plan. There are no recommendations in this paper. Indeed, Hubbard, one of the authors of this paper and a key adviser to Romney, has advocated a large program to encourage mortgage refinancing in the past, but Romney hasn’t embraced it.
Indeed, as Nick Timiraos notes, Romney’s comments on housing have been self-contradictory. At one point, his position was, “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.” Later, he said, “The idea that somehow this is going to cure itself by itself is probably not real. There’s going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action, which is in their best interest and the best interest of the homeowners.” But the campaign never released a formal policy resolving these tensions.
Meanwhile, Auerbach added another interesting wrinkle to his analysis. “Our paper didn’t take into account business-cycle considerations,” he said. “To the extent that the Romney plan spurs a more rapid economic recovery from our current state of high unemployment, that could make a big difference in short-run growth estimates. These would basically be demand-side stimulus effects.” In other words, insofar as Romney’s tax cuts act as a Keynesian stimulus package, they could do more for the economy in the short-run than standard tax models would assume. But that requires assuming that Keynesian stimulus works, which would contradict the first section of the Romney campaign’s paper….”
Romney just doesn’t comprehend the way of today’s world.
“...For the first time since the Great Depression, middle-class families have been losing ground for more than a decade. They, and the poor, have struggled particularly badly since the financial crisis led to a global recession in 2008. The idea that living standards inevitably improve from one generation to the next is under threat. Many of the bedrock assumptions of American culture — about work, progress, fairness and optimism — are being shaken. Arguably no question is more central to the country’s global standing than whether the economy will perform better in the future than it has in the recent past….”
“…Demographers also say:
_Poverty will remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 percent for many more years. Several predicted that peak poverty levels – 15 percent to 16 percent – will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 percent and weak wage growth.
_Suburban poverty, already at a record level of 11.8 percent, will increase again in 2011.
_Part-time or underemployed workers, who saw a record 15 percent poverty in 2010, will rise to a new high.
_Poverty among people 65 and older will remain at historically low levels, buoyed by Social Security cash payments.
_Child poverty will increase from its 22 percent level in 2010.
Analysts also believe that the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the poverty level, will remain near its peak level of 6.7 percent.
“I’ve always been the guy who could find a job. Now I’m not,” said Dale Szymanski, 56, a Teamsters Union forklift operator and convention hand who lives outside Las Vegas in Clark County. In a state where unemployment ranks highest in the nation, the Las Vegas suburbs have seen a particularly rapid increase in poverty from 9.7 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent.
Szymanski, who moved from Wisconsin in 2000, said he used to make a decent living of more than $40,000 a year but now doesn’t work enough hours to qualify for union health care. He changed apartments several months ago and sold his aging 2001 Chrysler Sebring in April to pay expenses.
“You keep thinking it’s going to turn around. But I’m stuck,” he said.
The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth, such as home ownership, as well as noncash aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which were expanded substantially under President Barack Obama’s stimulus package….”
We’re talking about a GOP POTUS candidate who is completely out of touch with 99.9% of the American people. He is rude, arrogant, and ignorant. He is pandering. He obviously doesn’t give a damn about We the Little People – the 99.9% of the country who don’t rub shoulders with his pimps. We’re not talking the ultra-wealthy here. We are talking about a group of men who are so wealthy they make the Robber Barons of the Gilded age look like trailer trash. They make the wealth of the Czars pale in comparison. And – according to The Pink Flamingo’s sources, many of them are being investigated by the Obama Administration for various illegal activities.
Let’s face it, people don’t become this wealthy by being nice little Sunday School teachers. You accumulate the kind of wealth Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers have by bending the rules, and living in the gray areas. These are the backers of Mitt Romney. The Pink Flamingo has even been told, by a very reliable source, that the reason gas prices are starting to go up is for the Koch Brothers and now Adelson to hurt Obama and try to get Romney in office because they will own him.
I wonder what is in those tax returns?
Inquiring minds want to know. I know I do. What if Romney did take tax amnesty for illegal accounts? He received amnesty, but is almost illegal.
This man has no right running for dog catcher, let alone POTUS.