What Romney should say to the Obama staff demanding more tax records be released

[christundivided]

Romney should say...

Since I have never bought into the fabricated "birther" controversy against Obama, I would hope "Barry" wouldn't buy into this fabricated controversy concerning me hiding millions of dollars in off shore accounts. BUT, I will make "Barry" a deal. If he will release his full educational records to make all the "birthers" happy. I'll release all my tax records to make the "obamanators" happy!

What you think?

 

[redgreen5]

Romney should say...

Since I have never bought into the fabricated "birther" controversy against Obama, I would hope "Barry" wouldn't buy into this fabricated controversy concerning me hiding millions of dollars in off shore accounts.

Pretty stupid comment, on several levels:

1.  Obama released his birth certificate - why can't Romney release his ofshore tax records?

2.  While birtherism may have been a favorite conspiracy theory for low-IQ idiots and conservotards, Romney's offshore accounts are a fact. Not only are they a fact, but Romney wanted desperately to keep these offshore accounts a secret:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57466462/romneys-undisclosed-offshore-assets-including-sankaty-co-in-bermuda-hint-at-greater-wealth/

(AP) WASHINGTON - For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose. Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.

[...]

Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney's wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys' ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney's two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys' 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.

What you think?

I think you are too stupid to form an accurate analogy. 

 

[christundivided]

Romney should say...

Since I have never bought into the fabricated "birther" controversy against Obama, I would hope "Barry" wouldn't buy into this fabricated controversy concerning me hiding millions of dollars in off shore accounts.

Pretty stupid comment, on several levels:

1.  Obama released his birth certificate - why can't Romney release his ofshore tax records?

2.  While birtherism may have been a favorite conspiracy theory for low-IQ idiots and conservotards, Romney's offshore accounts are a fact. Not only are they a fact, but Romney wanted desperately to keep these offshore accounts a secret:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57466462/romneys-undisclosed-offshore-assets-including-sankaty-co-in-bermuda-hint-at-greater-wealth/

(AP) WASHINGTON - For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose. Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.

[...]

Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney's wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys' ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney's two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys' 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.

What you think?

I think you are too stupid to form an accurate analogy.

1. Never disputed that he didn't. BUT he DIDN'T till AFTER he got elected. The first release was clearly altered. Romney has released his tax records.

2. Romney has never tried to keep them a secret. His 2010 tax returns are what lead people to know about them. So much for keeping them secret.

So much for your "superior intellect"!!!!!

Why is it your liberals think you're smarter than anyone else.

And why is your president refuses to release his school records? Will they show that your messiah isn't as smart as he thinks he is?

We know for a fact that moron was smoking dope and snorting herion and screwing white girls to try to "fit in" with us white people. He couldn't have been too smart. I'd say he failed a few things here and there.

 

[Ransom]

Are Romney's offshore accounts illegal? If not, who cares?

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=clueless and divided]
1. Never disputed that he didn't. BUT he DIDN'T till AFTER he got elected. The first release was clearly altered. Romney has released his tax records.[/quote]

LOL
1. Wrong. He released this information during the campaign, as part of the Secret Service / FBI vetting process that is performed on all prospective candidates.

2. The truth is that this is the first time this issue has ever came up. Why? Because Obama is a black man, a Democrat, with an Arabic-sounding name. And the only reason that it came up is because of the brain-dead wingnutters and conspiracy loonbats.  Obama is under no greater obligation than any other presidential candidate. Your response therefore fails.

3. The first release was not "clearly altered".

4. Romney has not released his entire set of records. That is why the article clearly says "Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed

4. Romney hasn't even been honest about his tax records:
The candidate's 2010 tax returns listed at least 20 investment holdings besides Sankaty that had not been previously disclosed on federal reports

5. Nor has Romney complied with Ethics requirements:

Several U.S. Securities and Exchange documents from the late 1990s and 2000s depicted Romney as Sankaty's owner at the time, but when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2001 and 2002, Romney did not list the company on annual disclosure forms required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

2. Romney has never tried to keep them a secret. His 2010 tax returns are what lead people to know about them. So much for keeping them secret.

1. Of course he has tried to keep them a secret. That's why they are in an OFFSHORE TAX HAVEN to begin with.

2. Secondly, if he wasn't trying to keep them a secret, then why did he transfer ownership ONE DAY BEFORE being sworn in as governor of Massachusetts?

3.  Romney continues to dodge accountability and honesty:

Romney has said he gets no tax break. He told an audience at a Maine town hall appearance in February that "I have not saved one dollar by having an investment somewhere outside this country."

But the lack of disclosure over the years, private equity experts said, makes it impossible to tell.

4.  Romney isn't trying to keep all this secret? Oh, really?

The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney's history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney's 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.

"We don't know the big picture," said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. "Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end."

So much for your "superior intellect"!!!!!

I claimed nothing about superior intellect.  Only that -- unlike you -- I am awake and paying attention.

As for the results - it's almost unfair of me to debate you. It's like beating a retarded dog to death with a sledgehammer.

Why is it your liberals think you're smarter than anyone else.

Not necessarily smarter than anyone else. Just smarter than you. 
But most common barnyard animals clear that rather low performance hurdle.

We know for a fact that moron was smoking dope and snorting herion

LOL well considering that Dubya was arrested and received a DUI and had a coke habit on top of that - and refused to go on the record and deny his drug use -- and continued to drink even after his so-called "conversion" -- I think the ethical benchmark has already been set by one of your own GOP idols.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=redgreen5]2. The truth is that this is the first time this issue has ever came up. Why? Because Obama is a black man, a Democrat, with an Arabic-sounding name. And the only reason that it came up is because of the brain-dead wingnutters and conspiracy loonbats.  Obama is under no greater obligation than any other presidential candidate. Your response therefore fails.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Presidential_candidates_whose_eligibility_was_questioned

 

[christundivided]

1. Wrong. He released this information during the campaign, as part of the Secret Service / FBI vetting process that is performed on all prospective candidates.

This is not what began the demand for more information. Look again twit.

2. The truth is that this is the first time this issue has ever came up. Why? Because Obama is a black man, a Democrat, with an Arabic-sounding name. And the only reason that it came up is because of the brain-dead wingnutters and conspiracy loonbats.  Obama is under no greater obligation than any other presidential candidate. Your response therefore fails.

rsca answered your question rather well. Obama is not a black man. Just ask Morgan Freeman.

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/morgan-freeman-obamas-not-our-first-black-president/

3. The first release was not "clearly altered".

Sure it was. Areas were at least "BLACKED OUT". That means it was altered. MORON.

4. Romney has not released his entire set of records. That is why the article clearly says "Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed

He has release everything required by the LAW. Why the double standard? Turd.

4. Romney hasn't even been honest about his tax records:
The candidate's 2010 tax returns listed at least 20 investment holdings besides Sankaty that had not been previously disclosed on federal reports

Not required. Show me that they are legally required? He has broken no laws. Did you know people who invest all the time move their money around????. Since you're probably poor trash living off the governments pocket book..... I don't expect you to understand. Some records show up some years and not others

5. Nor has Romney complied with Ethics requirements:

Several U.S. Securities and Exchange documents from the late 1990s and 2000s depicted Romney as Sankaty's owner at the time, but when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2001 and 2002, Romney did not list the company on annual disclosure forms required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

B.S. Nothing has been proven. If this is true... donate all the money you have to legally challenge him. Put you're money were your mouth is.... Coward.

1. Of course he has tried to keep them a secret. That's why they are in an OFFSHORE TAX HAVEN to begin with.

Nope. He has publicly said he paid taxes on everything. You have no proof otherwise. LIAR.

2. Secondly, if he wasn't trying to keep them a secret, then why did he transfer ownership ONE DAY BEFORE being sworn in as governor of Massachusetts?

No proof. LIES. Have you got the documents themselves in your hands that prove otherwise?

3.  Romney continues to dodge accountability and honesty:

Double standard. Obama is ten times worse.

Romney has said he gets no tax break. He told an audience at a Maine town hall appearance in February that "I have not saved one dollar by having an investment somewhere outside this country."

But the lack of disclosure over the years, private equity experts said, makes it impossible to tell.

Can you point to any IRS documents proving otherwise. Is the IRS actively using Romney???? Shut up Pansy.

4.  Romney isn't trying to keep all this secret? Oh, really?

The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney's history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney's 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.

"We don't know the big picture," said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. "Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end."

BIG PICTURE? The only BIG PICTURE you're missing is a life sizes portrait on your living room wall of "Barry".....your messiah.

As for the results - it's almost unfair of me to debate you. It's like beating a retarded dog to death with a sledgehammer.

So you're use to beating "dogs to death". Is PETA sponsoring your life's mission?

Not necessarily smarter than anyone else. Just smarter than you. 
But most common barnyard animals clear that rather low performance hurdle.

I hear you. Tell you what. Find a IQ test you're fond of and we'll each take it. I'll post a screen capture of my score and you can post your score. You up for it?

LOL well considering that Dubya was arrested and received a DUI and had a coke habit on top of that - and refused to go on the record and deny his drug use -- and continued to drink even after his so-called "conversion" -- I think the ethical benchmark has already been set by one of your own GOP idols.

So drinking is sin for "Dubya" and not for you other liberal morons? Got you.

I thought we are talking about Romney and Obama. If you want to seriously compare the two.... Obama would lose ever time on "ethics".

Turd...

 

[christundivided]

Are Romney's offshore accounts illegal? If not, who cares?

Only a double standard, liberal moron like "redgreen5".

Don't you just love how they ignore how Obama has refused to release information concerning himself and then demand we know EVERYTHING about his opponent in the election.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author=clueless and divided]1. Wrong. He released this information during the campaign, as part of the Secret Service / FBI vetting process that is performed on all prospective candidates.


This is not what began the demand for more information. Look again twit. [/quote]

Wrong, moron.  Of course, if you feel otherwise, go ahead and support your claim.

2. The truth is that this is the first time this issue has ever came up. Why? Because Obama is a black man, a Democrat, with an Arabic-sounding name. And the only reason that it came up is because of the brain-dead wingnutters and conspiracy loonbats.  Obama is under no greater obligation than any other presidential candidate. Your response therefore fails.[/b]

rsca answered your question rather well.

No, he didn't.  Like you, your fellow closet conservative rsc2a missed the point of my comment. Show me another president who has:

(a) presented the public with a legally valid birth certificate and
(b) has nevertheless had it questioned as a fake or a fraud, with ensuing innuendos and whispers as part of the opposition.

You can't do it.  Neither did rsc2a.  Why? Because as I said already: Obama is the first person that this has ever happened to. And the only reason it has happened to Obama is becaue he is a black man, a Democrat, with an Arabic-sounding name.

Both of you were wrong.

3. The first release was not "clearly altered".

Sure it was. Areas were at least "BLACKED OUT". That means it was altered. MORON.

More stupidity from the bottom of the gene pool.  Already discredited:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/

But please: do feel free to support your claim, retard.

[Romney] He has release everything required by the LAW.

No, he hasn't.  Perhaps you aren't aware with ethical disclosure requirements.
LOL
Well, there isn' much you're aware of at all, I suppose.

Why the double standard? Turd.

No double standard here; just a far better understanding of the legal requirements than you possess.

4. Romney hasn't even been honest about his tax records:
The candidate's 2010 tax returns listed at least 20 investment holdings besides Sankaty that had not been previously disclosed on federal reports

Not required. Show me that they are legally required?

LOL  too stupid to read?
required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

One more time, for the brain-dead:
required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

And a third time:
required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

B.S. Nothing has been proven.

Wrong. I just showed you the proof, crap-for-brains.

If this is true... donate all the money you have to legally challenge him.

More stupidity from the resident retard.
Whether I am willing to donate money to legally challenge Muffins Romney is irrelevant.
He has not complied with ethics laws in this matter. 

You were wrong, you shot your mouth off without knowing the facts, and now you're paying for it, Jethro. How does that dish of crow taste?

Put you're money were your mouth is.... Coward.

Not required, clueless sleazeball.

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author= clueless and divided]

Nope. He has publicly said he paid taxes on everything. You have no proof otherwise. LIAR.
[/quote]

LOL your claim was that he wasn't trying to keep them secret. Yet obviously he was. Otherwise, the offshore tax heaven wouldn't be necessary.

2. Secondly, if he wasn't trying to keep them a secret, then why did he transfer ownership ONE DAY BEFORE being sworn in as governor of Massachusetts?

No proof. LIES. Have you got the documents themselves in your hands that prove otherwise?

LOL what a sleaze clown you are.  You're flailing about because you know you've already lost the argument.

Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney's wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press.

Good enough for me. If you think the Associated Press is wrong, then get off your lazy backside and do some work to prove it.

3.  Romney continues to dodge accountability and honesty:

Double standard. Obama is ten times worse.

Vague desperate handwave. You're wrong as well as clueless.

Romney has said he gets no tax break. He told an audience at a Maine town hall appearance in February that "I have not saved one dollar by having an investment somewhere outside this country."

But the lack of disclosure over the years, private equity experts said, makes it impossible to tell.

Can you point to any IRS documents proving otherwise.

Romney failed to declare them - how can there be any documents?  Apparently you're still too stupid to understand the issue:  Romney hasn't fully disclosed his assets to the IRS.

Shut up Pansy.

If you think you can make me shut up, retard, then by all means - give it a try.

4.  Romney isn't trying to keep all this secret? Oh, really?

The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney's history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney's 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.

"We don't know the big picture," said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. "Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end."

BIG PICTURE? The only BIG PICTURE you're missing is a life sizes portrait on your living room wall of "Barry".....your messiah.

LOL childish distraction again?

Ladies and gentlemen, our forum's pet idiot poster, clueless and divided tried to claim that Romney wasn't trying to keep these investments secret.

Was that before, or after, his lack of financial disclosure?  (Hint:  not disclosing something means you want to keep it secret)?
Was that before, or after, Romney had a shredding party and did his computer purges, hmm?


BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

 

[redgreen5]

[quote author= clueless and divided]
As for the results - it's almost unfair of me to debate you. It's like beating a retarded dog to death with a sledgehammer.

So you're use to beating "dogs to death". Is PETA sponsoring your life's mission?[/quote]

I'm not used to that.  I'm merely comparing your pathetic performance in this debate to a retarded dog. And my arguments killing yours, like an act of mercy, putting the dog out of its misery.

I hear you. Tell you what. Find a IQ test you're fond of and we'll each take it. I'll post a screen capture of my score and you can post your score. You up for it?

*sigh* another idiot comment from you?

1. Internet IQ tests are bogus.  The only truly valid ones are given by trained experts.
2. I already know my score. 
3. Considering your lack of ethics, integrity, and personal habits, I wouldn't trust you to post an honest score if your life depended on it.

LOL well considering that Dubya was arrested and received a DUI and had a coke habit on top of that - and refused to go on the record and deny his drug use -- and continued to drink even after his so-called "conversion" -- I think the ethical benchmark has already been set by one of your own GOP idols.

So drinking is sin for "Dubya" and not for you other liberal morons? Got you.

LOL bad logic and crappy reasoning skills.

1. I never said it was a sin for Dubya - however, he did fail to disclose any of this. Moreover, he claimed to have stopped drinking. There is ample evidence otherwise. He is a liar.

2. Getting a DWI isn't about drinking anyhow; it's about being drunk behind the wheel of a car and putting other people's lives in danger.  Only a drooling moron like yourself would confuse the two.

3. You skipped over Dubya's recreational drug use.

I thought we are talking about Romney and Obama. If you want to seriously compare the two.... Obama would lose ever time on "ethics".

Sadly wrong.

Turd...

Clueless sleazebag.

 

[Ransom]

What's with the American obsession with seeing presidential candidates' tax returns, anyway?

 

[redgreen5]

Are Romney's offshore accounts illegal? If not, who cares?

Only a double standard, liberal moron like "redgreen5".

Children should learn to keep quiet, while adults are talking.  No milk and cookies for you, idiot child.


To answer Ransom's question:

1. The accounts themselves are not illegal. However, see my point 4, below;

2. But failure to disclose those accounts most certainly is illegal. The IRS requires that the nature and scope of these accounts be declared, for taxation purposes and also to verify that they comport with the required legal structure.  Romney has not fully complied with that.

Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney's state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.

[...]

The candidate's 2010 tax returns listed at least 20 investment holdings besides Sankaty that had not been previously disclosed on federal reports. At least seven were foreign investments. Bain Capital Inc., the holding that posted the $1.9 million earning, was listed on Romney's state ethics reports in 2001 and 2002, when he ran for governor, but was missing from any annual ethics report until Romney's trust included it last month on his 2012 financial statement.

It is impossible to know if Romney has paid all the IRS taxes owed as long as he refuses to fully disclose his assets. That, in a nutshell, is the problem here:  a lack of full disclosure.

3. Moreover, there are additional ethical requirements placed on people in public office, which require more extensive disclosure than merely what the IRS requires.  This can occur at both the state and federal level; i.e., the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission and the US Office of Government Ethics. Failure to comply with those additional requirements is also a Romney character failing:

Several U.S. Securities and Exchange documents from the late 1990s and 2000s depicted Romney as Sankaty's owner at the time, but when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2001 and 2002, Romney did not list the company on annual disclosure forms required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.

4. The fact that they are legal is not the same thing as being ethical. Lets' remember what these offshore tax havens really are: special exemptions carved out in the federal tax code, by legislators who are paid by people like Romney, to create this exact kind of shell company.  So is it any wonder that they are legal?  They were designed by the 1% using the politicians and lawyers that they paid for, to create the legal outcome that they desired.  I'm not sure why they deserve a round of applause for complying with tax laws that they wrote to benefit themselves from Day One. "Yes, your honor - I fully complied with these beneficial regulations that I wrote myself and had my lobbyists push through Congress for me, using politicians that I paid for."

5. These offshore tax havens  -- there is no office, no furniture or computers, no receptionist, etc. They are little more than a post office box in a UPS Store.  But each of these havens requires that someone else pay additional taxes to offset the tax privileges of these tax havens.  Muffins Romney, for example, pays a 13.9% tax rate, and yet he's one of the 1% of the 1%.  It takes $380,000 of annual income to qualify as being in the 1% in the USA.  Romney makes that in a week. No, I'm not exaggerating on that figure, and no I'm not kidding. So I'm not sure why Romney should pay a lower tax rate than ordinary middle class Americans are paying, and I'm certainly not convinced that middle class Americans should pick up the tab for Romney's offshore tax haven.

6. Finally, there is the question that has nothing to do with legality, but one of honesty:  Romney has been trying to claim that his investments did not send jobs offshore. Well, clearly they did.  Romney is a liar.

Don't you just love how they ignore how Obama has refused to release information concerning himself and then demand we know EVERYTHING about his opponent in the election.

The only thing being ignored around here is you - just as all misbehaving kids should be ignored.