Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 16, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 102 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Romney nixes Obama bid for 5-year tax disclosure

By Charles Babington

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 05:00 a.m. HST, Aug 17, 2012


BOSTON >> Barack Obama's re-election campaign kept up pressure against Republican rival Mitt Romney on two fronts Friday, launching a new ad defending the president's record on Medicare while challenging Romney to release at least five years of tax returns.

The TV advertisement, accusing Romney and running mate Paul Ryan of undermining the health care program critical to millions of seniors, came as Romney continued raise money in non-battleground states. That remains a top priority, even with the election less than 12 weeks away and Obama making extended visits to toss-up states such as Iowa and Ohio.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the president's camp would seek no further disclosures if Romney would release five years of his individual tax returns. The Romney campaign, which often says there will be no end to Democrats' demands for tax records, rejected the offer.

"It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Gov. Romney's tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters," said Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades.

Romney released his 2010 tax return and has pledged to release his 2011 returns, but no others. Obama, like most other modern-day presidential nominees, has released several years of returns.

Obama's campaign has questioned whether there are years when Romney paid no taxes. Romney defended his record Thursday, saying he has paid at least 13 percent of his income in federal taxes every year for the past decade.

"I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent," Romney told reporters after landing in South Carolina for a fundraising event Thursday. "I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year."

Aides later said Romney meant to say 13.9 percent, the amount he already disclosed for his 2010 federal return.

On average, middle-income families, those making from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, pay 12.8 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

In 2010 and 2011, Romney made about $21 million a year.

Romney is able to keep his tax rate low because most of his income is from investments, which are generally taxed at a lower rate than wages. That type of legal tax figuring is something Obama has proposed changing, although his campaign notably said nothing about Romney's self-described tax rate itself.

In the new Medicare ad, Obama's campaign pointed to the AARP, an organization that represents senior citizens and had said in a letter to lawmakers earlier this year that Ryan's plan to transform Medicare into a voucher-like system would lead to higher costs for seniors.

The AARP said Obama's approach would strengthen the program. Romney has criticized Obama for taking more than $700 billion in Medicare funds to help pay for the president's health care law.

Obama's campaign is running the ad in eight states: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

The Romney campaign on Friday disputed the new ad, and repeated its claim that Obama's plans would siphon spending from Medicare without safeguarding the program's long-term stability.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 102 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(102)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
frontman wrote:
obama.............release your real birth certificate and ALL college transcripts and records first. Might we find out that you went through college by a different last name with foreign aid paying your bills??????
on August 17,2012 | 05:16AM
Anonymous wrote:
The President's birth certificate has been released. Unlike the leader of the nation's tax returns, college transcripts from 30 years ago are immaterial. Every presidential candidate since Hawai`i's Obama attended college has been upfront in the disclosure of multiple years of tax returns. Even Romney's pops, the CEO of American Motors, released years of tax returns in his bid for the 1968 Republican nomination. Failing to release 5 years worth of tax returns is especially secretive since Romney was actually running for the nation's top office during that period. I suspect a perusal of the returns would reveal similar deductions as the 78K for his prancing Olympic horse. Romney's go back in time policies are what created the economic crisis. They overwhelmingly favor people like him. So it is astounding that any middle class voter would cast their ballot for him.
on August 17,2012 | 07:28AM
Descartes22 wrote:
I posted the 7:28 a.m. comment. I'm thinking and I am. Don't know that Anonymous guy.
on August 17,2012 | 07:30AM
tiki886 wrote:
Obama has no idea how to create jobs. That's why he has nothing better to say or do than ask for someone's tax returns. (Is Obama trying to figure out how to create jobs by looking at tax returns?) I hope Obama makes his quest for Romney's tax returns his major campaign focus.
on August 17,2012 | 08:03AM
EightOEight wrote:
Republicans are too busy working on anti-women and voter suppression legislation to pass any meaningful jobs bills themselves. Re Boehner's assertion that they have passed 30 jobs bills: Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, agreed that the bills would have almost no effect on job creation in the short term, though he was slightly more optimistic about their long-term prospects.   "These kind of changes will matter over a period of three to five years," Zandi said. "It takes that long before businesses can digest changes and respond to them."  He noted, though, that legislation as narrowly targeted as the Republican package is unlikely to do much for real job creation.
on August 17,2012 | 12:09PM
OldDiver wrote:
Agreed. President Obama is not running a campaign based on his college transcripts. Romney is running based on his business experience. The American people want to know how Romney made his money. Does he have money stashed away in offshore accounts to evade paying taxes? Did he capitalize Bain Capital with money from South American terrorist groups. Romney wants to provide less information to the American public than cabinet appointees much revel to Congress in their confirmation hearings.
on August 17,2012 | 08:07AM
allie wrote:
Obama said he was an average student at the elite Punahou. He has not hidden that
on August 17,2012 | 08:28AM
tiki886 wrote:
He has hidden his college transcripts and his writings as the President of Harvard Review. Why? Because it will prove he is a commie just like his mom and dad.

If we could read his body of work as a Harvard law professor, we might also find the reason he is not able to create jobs is because he is also an anti-capitalist.


on August 17,2012 | 08:36AM
OldDiver wrote:
Where did you hear that nonsense, Republican TV (Fox News)?
on August 17,2012 | 08:39AM
Descartes22 wrote:
Yes, many receive their [mis]information from Murdoch (an Aussie who also owns the Wall Street Journal and who is so well-received in Great Britain) and such rationale types as Rush. And you are also correct in the observation that Romney himself has injected his business acumen into the race. Undoubtedly, (as his one released tax year illustrates) he has shifted money overseas to avoid paying his fair and reasonable share. May be legal, like the deductions for his prancing horse, but it certainly is unseemly. And since he has exploited the tax system to his benefit over the years, there is no reason to think that loopholes and other inequities will be remedied under his regime.
on August 17,2012 | 08:55AM
tiki886 wrote:
No I read his books, both of them and listened to some of his book tapes. He definitely is a choomin anti-capitalist. Can't wait to watch Dinesh D'Souza's 2016: Obama's America.
on August 17,2012 | 08:56AM
beachbum11 wrote:
No from the real world
on August 17,2012 | 10:51AM
beachbum11 wrote:
And don't forget his grandfather and grandmother they belonged to that party too.
on August 17,2012 | 10:50AM
tinapa wrote:
tako-poke....Hurry, go hide, the communist bogeyman is coming to get you but this time he is bringing with him Idi Amin and Baby Doc Duvalier. I heard they gonna shake you down and cut something else if you have one.
on August 17,2012 | 03:07PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Or is Obama the love child of Che Gueverra and Bernadine Dorn? Seriously, you guys just kill me. Worse, more laughable than the birthers. LOL. And another thing: where exactly in a tax return would you expect to find hidden offshore accounts? Form HO (for hidden offshore)?
on August 17,2012 | 09:12AM
EightOEight wrote:
Or are Romney and Rand actually brothers and the love children of Ayn Rand and Sheldon Addelson? Seriously, you guys just kill me. Worse, more laughable than the commiephobes like Tiki. And another thing, Romney can go to www.offshorecorporation.com/tax forms...lots of IRS forms to choose from since there are so many kinds of offshore accounts.
on August 17,2012 | 10:46AM
Pacej001 wrote:
By trumping my silly statement about Che fathering Obama, you make my point. Thanks.
on August 17,2012 | 11:16AM
EightOEight wrote:
Yes, yours was a silly comment. Thanks for making my point.
on August 17,2012 | 11:56AM
Pacej001 wrote:
i think you have to look to OD as the source of the silliness.
on August 17,2012 | 12:19PM
EightOEight wrote:
Oh no, I know whose silly comment I'm referring to and it's not OD's.
on August 17,2012 | 12:25PM
lee1957 wrote:
Evidently you missed the humor/sarcasm. If its a hidden offshore account, filing a tax form saying you are hiding money is non-sensical.
on August 17,2012 | 11:47AM
EightOEight wrote:
And you miss my humor/sarcasm. Now Romney knows where to go to get the IRS offshore account forms...so he doesn't have to wait for the next federal tax amnesty program.
on August 17,2012 | 11:58AM
Pacej001 wrote:
You got it. Unfortunately, many of our progressive (have we been making progress in the last 3.5 years????) are professional point missers.
on August 17,2012 | 04:31PM
EightOEight wrote:
Romney and RYAN...sorry for mixing him up with Rand...but the the two are practically synonymous now, aren't they?
on August 17,2012 | 11:06AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Not if you accept factual evidence.
on August 17,2012 | 11:17AM
EightOEight wrote:
Factual evidence. You mean conservative "facts"? LOL
on August 17,2012 | 12:14PM
beachbum11 wrote:
Would like to know how you make your money? Besides spending all day every day just posting trash here. Oh I am sorry your are being paid by Hart and Hawaii democrat party. That what it seem like.Too much kool aid.
on August 17,2012 | 10:49AM
lee1957 wrote:
Gee, maybe he laundered money for the Cali cartel.
on August 17,2012 | 11:45AM
Pacej001 wrote:
"They overwhelmingly favor people like him". Tax expenditures do not overwhelmingly favor people like Romney. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/expenditures/largest.cfm). Tax expenditures benefit individuals and businesses across the spectrum. Mortgage deduction and tax deferred pensions are very large deductions available to all. Hopefully, middle class voters will be better informed than this post when they go to the polls.
on August 17,2012 | 08:20AM
Descartes22 wrote:
All the well-respected non-partisan entities that have evaluated the competing tax policies view the Romney blueprint as disproportionately favoring the wealthy. "Tax expenditures" is the incorrect nomenclature. And mortgage deductions are considered a scared cow and are not touched in either party's plans. The trickle down theory that Romney has adopted has been tried - and has failed. As I stated, it is astounding that some in the middle class have embraced bygone, repudiated tax policies promulgated by the wealthy class
on August 17,2012 | 08:47AM
tiki886 wrote:
Well respected non-partisan entities have also determined that Obama is an anti-capitalist whose policies favor the undeserving entitilement class of commies like Obama.
on August 17,2012 | 09:17AM
EightOEight wrote:
Really, commiephobe? Which well respected non-partisan entities might those be?
on August 17,2012 | 11:00AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well, the well respected entity that commented on Romney's plan is an appendage of the Brookings Institute and the Urban institute. Neither are non-partisan. Both lean left. My link, which you evidently didn't check, is to that very same well respected entity, the Tax Policy center. The point still stands that "tax expenditures" benefit a very broad cross section of our population, not just the wealthy. Trickle down? OK, if not that then what? Obama has no plan to get our economy moving and, in fact, has effectively tossed a wet blanket over our flickering economic recovery by creating massive uncertainty, yammering about raising taxes, and ramping up growth-kiling government regulation. All Obama is offering is nothing but more of the same, or worse, in a second term. I can't see how a thinking middle class voter would support him.
on August 17,2012 | 09:24AM
EightOEight wrote:
Well respected entity, Tax Policy Center? Really? You mean the one Romney said didn't do a good job of evaluating Ryan's budget plan because it's not favorable to the poor and middle income classes and favors the wealthy? That one? Yet Romney praised TPC'S in its evaluation of Perry's plan during the primaries.
on August 17,2012 | 10:55AM
Pacej001 wrote:
You just made my point II. Progressives praise TPC for skewering Romney's tax proposal, but would ignore its studies showing broad social benefit, not just to the rich, coming from tax expenditures (loop holes in the tax code).
on August 17,2012 | 11:20AM
EightOEight wrote:
Learning from the Romney flip-flop playbook. You know, like his positions on the Ryan budget plan the past few days...
on August 17,2012 | 12:22PM
lee1957 wrote:
What is the workable alternative to trickle down?
on August 17,2012 | 11:49AM
kolekole wrote:
Can't figure out why Obama likes to talk about anything but the Economy,Jobs and how to get people back to work. We're all on this Titanic together. I won't slip on that Banana voting for him again!
on August 17,2012 | 06:11AM
OldDiver wrote:
President Obama always talks about the economy. He often mentions how the Republican Congress is failing to pass his jobs bill in an effort to bring down the economy for the November election.
on August 17,2012 | 08:08AM
beachbum11 wrote:
And where is there budget old du one
on August 17,2012 | 10:53AM
Pacej001 wrote:
There's a reason for everything. Obama has no record of economic success to run on. Worse still, he has no plan for the future, no plan to create jobs, no plan to control our debt, no plan to preserve, in some form, the key entitlements, SS and Medicare, that are bankrupting us. He has nothing of substance to offer.
on August 17,2012 | 08:23AM
allie wrote:
Considering the economic disaster he inherited, he has actually done very well
on August 17,2012 | 08:28AM
OldDiver wrote:
Democrats are trying to fill the huge economic hole Bush left behind. Problem is the Republicans continue to make the hole bigger.
on August 17,2012 | 08:41AM
tiki886 wrote:
Right. It's still Bush's fault.
on August 17,2012 | 09:00AM
EightOEight wrote:
Damned straight. You finally got something right.
on August 17,2012 | 11:02AM
EightOEight wrote:
You got that right!
on August 17,2012 | 12:37PM
Pacej001 wrote:
If you fellows weren't trying to fill the hole with more unemployed people, bogus loans to the dozens of Solyndra's, or subsidies to keep unions and car makers in Finland in business, you might almost have a point.
on August 17,2012 | 11:22AM
thepartyfirst wrote:
Your Democrats owned the White House, the Congress and the Senate from 2008 to 2010. What did they do to correct the "economici hole" that was so called left behind? Where did that massive stimulus money go? How come your do nothing Democrats only lie and blame the other party. Time for real change and hope for America.
on August 17,2012 | 11:43AM
EightOEight wrote:
Excuse me? I know where a lot of that stimulus money went: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-now-says-his-office-requested-stimulus-funds-20120817,0,1393813.story
on August 17,2012 | 02:02PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
You are a fool if you think Ryan got "most" of the stimulus money.
on August 17,2012 | 06:28PM
EightOEight wrote:
You're the fool, partyfirst. I didn't say "most", you did.
on August 17,2012 | 06:43PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Worst economic recovery since in seventy years is doing very well? That's a pretty low expectation. I'm sorry, but he's done just about everything wrong and, stubbornly, proposes to KEEP doing it wrong during a second term.
on August 17,2012 | 09:58AM
lee1957 wrote:
By the President's own admission he has had plenty of time to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. Only in politics would such poor performance be rewarded with continued employment.
on August 17,2012 | 11:54AM
Hawaiianhaole wrote:
I don't care what Romney has done with his own money, The real concern is what Obama is going to do with my money.
on August 17,2012 | 07:43AM
tiki886 wrote:
Bingo! Here's a copy of Romney's response:

Hey Jim,

Thanks for the note. It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Governor Romney’s tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters, like putting Americans back to work, fixing the economy and reining in spending.

If Governor Romney’s tax returns are the core message of your campaign, there will be ample time for President Obama to discuss them over the next 81 days.

In the meantime, Governor Romney will continue to lay out his plans for a stronger middle class, to save Medicare, to put work back into welfare, and help the 23 million Americans struggling to find work in the Obama economy.

See you in Denver.

Matt Rhoades

Romney for President

Campaign Manager


on August 17,2012 | 07:55AM
OldDiver wrote:
Romney has been using his money to ship American jobs overseas. You are not concerned about that?
on August 17,2012 | 08:09AM
tiki886 wrote:
The only job I'm interested in shipping is Obama's, back to Chicago!
on August 17,2012 | 08:38AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Pretty silly, this tax return thing, when you think about it. After all, a tax return reflects your fully disclosed, legally paid federal taxes --- it represents a citizen's open disclosure of his income to the IRS and his lawful use of the tax law to pay the minimum tax he owes, nothing more, nothing less. So what does Obama or Reid expect us to find? Hidden income? Illegal tax dodges? Payments to the mother of an illegitimate love child? Obama fans, here's an important clue for you: People don't include that kind of incriminating stuff in their tax returns. What we'd find out about Romney is that he's wealthy and, probably, that he gives a lot to charity---BFD. So, keep whining about tax returns. Meanwhile, the real discussion, due to the brilliant selection of Paul Ryan, has moved on to things that really matter. Romney was right not to offer more financial information to Democrats who lack a record of success and are desperate for any scrap of information they can use to tarnish Romney.
on August 17,2012 | 08:10AM
allie wrote:
He has avoided taxes and that is legal, if not admirable
on August 17,2012 | 08:27AM
Descartes22 wrote:
If you may recall, it was in the Republican primary that there were first calls for him to release his tax returns. By the way, Ryan is no grand thinker to hearten the middle class. His philosophy is premised on the teachings of his intellectual guru, Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand espoused selfishness and self-interest as the overriding principle of being. And talk about another sliver spooner. Ryan's family has owned and operated a hugely profitable construction company for over 100 years. His family's business has derived most of its riches from government contracts.
on August 17,2012 | 09:02AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Ryan has specifically rejected Rand's philosophy of hard edged personal selfishness, Objectivism. What he doesn't reject is Rand's description of the stifling effects of rampant, overly powerful top down government control. Obama's mentality, executive orders, and sub-legal EPA could have been taken right out the pages of Atlas Shrugged. Actually a better reference for understanding Obama would be Orwell's 1984.
on August 17,2012 | 09:32AM
Descartes22 wrote:
Don't be a fountainhead. When Ryan finally distanced himself from Rand and her Me, Me philosophy in 2009 he did so under the guise of her being an atheist. By the way, the non-partisan CBO is acknowledged as providing the wisest and most well-respected analysis of budget and tax policy impact. Romney's tiring "trust me" whinings on everything from clear specifics as to the time frame for balancing the budget in his plan, his foreign policy doctrines, and, yes his tax returns, do not bespeak an open non-Orwellian dialogue. If we're discussing dystopian literary references, I would suggest to you Huxley's Brave New World - where it's take a pill and don't pay attention to what's happening.
on August 17,2012 | 09:56AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Ryan didn't have to distance himself from something he was never proximate to. Millions read Rand's work without ever looking into her philosophy. CBO is great. They analyze what is put before them, goofy assumptions and all. See their alternate scenario for their most realistic cut at our future. Otherwise, so what. Romney should be excruciatingly specific on budget cuts when Obama has no plan at all? That would be stupid, politically, and just give the Grandmother-over-the-cliff team at Campaign Obama more material for mud slinging. Romney shouldn't be more specific until Obama is-- which will be never. I really do think it's you folks have taken Huxley's pill. No national budget in three years. No coherent plan for our vast energy resources. Focus on non-economic alternate energy boondoggles. No deficit/debt reduction plan. These things represent the undeniable state of the Obama administration, yet progressives are blind to it.
on August 17,2012 | 11:32AM
EightOEight wrote:
Really. I'd like Ryan to go back to the Atlas Society to give another speech and try to backpeddle.
on August 17,2012 | 12:05PM
Pacej001 wrote:
No national budget in three years. No coherent plan for our vast energy resources. Focus on non-economic alternate energy boondoggles. No deficit/debt reduction plan. These things represent the undeniable state of the Obama administration, yet progressives focused on novels and philosophy.
on August 17,2012 | 12:21PM
EightOEight wrote:
Same regurgitation again, Pace. We can agree to disagree...AGAIN.
on August 17,2012 | 12:28PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Repetition is the soul of education. Made that up, but it is true and progressives evidently need a LOT of repetition before the important problems facing the country will appear in your consciousness. The general electorate is going to get it. You guys will be saying "what happened?". Debt, deficit, entitlement bankruptcy, jobs, economic growth. These are the things the electorate will be moved by, not by Romney's wealth, or Obama's negative personal attacks.
on August 17,2012 | 12:43PM
EightOEight wrote:
You're being condescending again, Pace. We care about a lot of the same things, but often disagree on the solutions. And the conservative self-righteousness is amusing regarding the campaigning.
on August 17,2012 | 01:07PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Conservative self-richeousness, but none from the liberal/progressive side? Really? Sure doesn't look that way to me. As to seeing the same problems, but having the same solutions, I don't see that at all. The president has no solutions, no plans, nothing in the works to address the great problems we face. His only solution is a tax increase that will shave less than .5% of the national debt. That's it!? Meanwhile, SS is now in the red. Medicare goes bankrupt in about a decade. Medicaid cost go through the roof. The economy is at stall speed. And that's it??? At least Romney/Ryan are willing to take a shot at it. Mr. Obama, having nothing of substance, is running a campaign based on personal attacks and innuendo. Seems like you guys are hoping he'll win, but you still aren't asking the "and then what" question.
on August 17,2012 | 04:48PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Also, explain why successful people should be barred from public office. Do operators of very successful companies have nothing to offer public service? Meanwhile, Ryan's financial disclosure documents show his net worth between $1million and $5 million, same range as Maize Hirono. He's not a super wealthy man.
on August 17,2012 | 09:50AM
Descartes22 wrote:
Can't recall any situations where unsuccessful individuals secured public office. If you are talking about wealth accumulation, certainly there is nothing to bar a rich person from becoming President. In fact, George Washington (mainly as a result of Martha's family riches), is generally recognized as the wealthiest person to hold the office. Like our first President (and John Kerry for that matter) a lot of Ryan's wealth also rests with the bucks in his wife's family. In any event, when personal histories are concerned, sliver spooned fortunate sons like the two guys heading the Republican ticket (and. Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger) do not have the inherent understanding of the struggles of the middle class. They do not have the personal experiences of hardship, such as the up by the bootstrap guys on the Democrat ticket. Reagan had this personal understanding and background however no Republican candidate since then can make the claim. Again, this is why I find it amazing that large swathes of the middle class feel connected to Romney and his historically repudiated supply-side policies.
on August 17,2012 | 10:21AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Uh. Obama, other than government, succeded at nothing, did nothing. And what exactly is his understanding of the middle class, typical American? Punahou, Columbia, Harvard? Seriously. Mr. Obama may have had ONE real job and he saw his employer as "the enemy". In his own way, he is as from the elite as either Bush was, it's just that he's from the liberal, academic elite, no more in touch with the "real" america than they were. Obama up by his bootstraps? Joking. He's a hothouse product of liberal academia, the progressive far left. So why does the middle class favor Romney? It's because they can think. His path makes more sense, a top down government dominated future doesn't.
on August 17,2012 | 11:41AM
Descartes22 wrote:
A person who was raised by his grandparents and a single mother in a walk up apartment in Makiki and relied on his brains and scholarship money to succeed at the nation's top academic institutions does indeed have bootstraps. I suppose any higher education institution other than Liberty University and BYU amounts to liberal academia in your view. Channeling Rush and the Murdoch talking heads is unpersuasive.
on August 17,2012 | 03:23PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Almost all of American academia, except the hard sciences, is permeated with progressive political ideology. In what were supposed to be the great centers of free thought, stultifying speech codes and wildly biased curricula are the norm. Free speech is gone. Freedom of inquiry is gone. The great universities are self-replicating bastions of liberal group think where shouting down an unorthodox speaker or philosophy is applauded. Political correctness rules and represents the ruin that these institutions have become. The fact that Obama ascended in this hothouse environment, without ever really touching the real world, is justification for great suspicion. The fact that his liberal professors have so willingly cloaked his associations, beliefs, and performance while there is even greater cause for concern.
on August 17,2012 | 04:59PM
lee1957 wrote:
A few posts ago, the 'Ryan family fortune" was funded via 100 years of government contracts awarded to the family business. Now, alot of his wealth is from his wife's familly. Is the correct answer A, B, or C none of the above?
on August 17,2012 | 12:03PM
Descartes22 wrote:
All of the above. No one said the source of his riches was derived from mutually exclusive sources. The bottom line is that Ryan has played in D.C. since age 29 and was born into wealth. So was Romney. There are pointed differences in the backgrounds of the respective tickets. I suppose you and Pace agree that the Republican ticket based on background and experience is more sympathetic to the middle class. However, they are certainly no JFK when it comes to noblesse oblige.
on August 17,2012 | 03:08PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Congressmen file disclosure agreements, you know. Ryan's latest has his worth at somewhere between $1million and $5million. That includes the trust his wife inherited. FYI. There are many, many democrats in congress who are far better off than Ryan. As to the question of who has more sympathy for the middle class, I don't know. However, I do know we should be voting for the people who are most able to turn our economic and fiscal disasters around. After the last 3.5 years, why would anyone think more of the same from Obama is going to do that? I believe the candidate with a vast understanding of business (his opponent has none) and a running mate with a plan to address our entitlement/debt problems (his opponent has none) represent the only rational choice. I also believe that both Romney and Ryan are men of exceptional character who will do their best for all Americans.
on August 17,2012 | 05:07PM
lee1957 wrote:
So you have a tax return archive from the Ryan family business? Brilliant!
on August 17,2012 | 11:58AM
EightOEight wrote:
Not so silly, Pace. Maybe Romney doesn't want the electorate to know that he committed a felony for not disclosing his offshore accounts...then was forced to under the federal tax amnesty program...as in, maybe legal now, but not before. http://www.businessinsider.com/individualism-vs-collectivism-thanks-for-the-ammunition-ann-2012-8
on August 17,2012 | 11:33AM
ready2go wrote:
What is he keeping secret? All public officials do disclose their personal finances to avoid any potential conflicts of interest.
on August 17,2012 | 08:12AM
tiki886 wrote:
He has. 2 years as required by law.
on August 17,2012 | 08:39AM
lee1957 wrote:
He is not a public official, he is a private citizen. He won't be a public official until January of next year.
on August 17,2012 | 12:04PM
EightOEight wrote:
What a cop-out. He is running to be POTUS!
on August 17,2012 | 12:32PM
tiki886 wrote:
He already met the requirements of the law. Too bad. You're going to get squat!
on August 17,2012 | 04:23PM
EightOEight wrote:
You're right agai,, Tiki! That's exactly what the American people get from Romney...SQUAT!
on August 17,2012 | 06:49PM
ufried wrote:
WELL SAID FRONTMAN.... OBLAMER WANTS TO SEE EVERYTHING BUT HIS OWN FACE IN THE MIRROR. IT'S NEVER HIS FAULT,IT'S BAD TO SUCCEED IN LIFE, WE'RE ALL RACIST!!! THIS MIDDLE CLASS VOTER WILL BE VOTING FOR ROMNEY. I'M STRIVING FOR SUCCESS NOT GOV. HANDOUTS...
on August 17,2012 | 08:13AM
roadsterred wrote:
Much ado abut nothing. Obama can't run on his record so what does he do, he creates a non-issue about his opponent? Sorry President Obama, you can fool all of the people some of time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. After 3 1/2 years of your "lead from the behind" form of leadership, the American voters are ready for a real leader, one who leads from the front. You may have hoodwinked a lot of voters with your hope and change campaign in 2008, but it's now 2012 and you can no longer blame Bush. It's time to man up and take responsibility. Ducking the White House Press Corps for 8 weeks and counting is not leadership. Oh yes, that's right, you can't use a teleprompter in a live press conference.
on August 17,2012 | 08:25AM
allie wrote:
Romney obviously has a lot to hide
on August 17,2012 | 08:26AM
tiki886 wrote:
While Obama was Choomin wit his gang, smokin dope and snortin coke, Romney was already creating thousands of jobs for Americans!
on August 17,2012 | 08:43AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Hard to follow your logic. He's hiding something he's disclosed, backed by his signature, to the IRS? I believe he's doing the logical thing: denying the Obama campaign any information they might twist/distort and use against him.
on August 17,2012 | 09:54AM
EightOEight wrote:
Politics is not for wimps. Romney needs to follow his father's example and disclosure philosophy.
on August 17,2012 | 12:02PM
Pacej001 wrote:
So, I'll repeat the point above. What, other than legal investments, disclosed to the IRS and taxes paid, will more Romney returns show? Answer: Nothing.
on August 17,2012 | 12:30PM
EightOEight wrote:
I already gave you a very possible scenario: http://www.businessinsider.com/individualism-vs-collectivism-thanks-for-the-ammunition-ann-2012-8 .
on August 17,2012 | 12:42PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Romney's assets have been in a blind trust since 2002.
on August 17,2012 | 12:47PM
EightOEight wrote:
Romney himself said that blind trusts are a "ruse" (his own term). http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Romney-blindtrust-DailyShow-Bain/2012/07/18/id/445757
on August 17,2012 | 01:15PM
Descartes22 wrote:
Yes, they would show more absurd ruses like the 78K deduction for the prancing Olympic horse. They would also show ,as the prescient EightOEight suggests, the bilking of the nation's tax system through illegal offshore accounts. Amnesty for tax scofflaws like Romney, the Koch brothers and Sheldon but no amnesty for educated and successful children of immigrants.
on August 17,2012 | 03:13PM
entrkn wrote:
I want to see Romney's 10 year record - and he is saying he is paying 13% - that seems really really low for a billionaire - and is that 13% on his funds in US banks - what about all of his off-shore funds - lots of dangling questions and lots and lots of evasion for someone running for President of the United States...
on August 17,2012 | 11:57AM
Descartes22 wrote:
You are correct. When you run for the highest office in the nation, you need to be transparent. He's been running for 5 years and yet still persisted during that time frame in skirting the line on paying his reasonable and fair share of taxes.
on August 17,2012 | 03:17PM
tinapa wrote:
After Mitt Romney publicly proclaimed that he paid at least 13% of his incomes, he was asked to prove it by releasing just at least 5 tax returns, he refused. Romney's "trust me mentality" is a an insult to the intelligence of the average Americans. Mitt Romney is spineless and does not have the courage to face reality. He is not being transparent to them and yet asks for their votes and trust and that is excruciatingly painful. He complained that his taxes are private and personal. That 's true but sir, you are running for president, so your personal and private life becomes public. Especially when tax fairness is one of the hot button campaign issues. Mitt Romney is an unprincipled person and he loves to moonwalk around issues. One side of his mouth says something and the other side says another and that is scary. Contrast that to the President who openly declared that the average workers' pains are his pains, Obama is advancing hopes and optimism while Romney preaches fear and pessimism. Obama is paving the path to prosperity, while Romney is throwing roadblocks onto the path. These are the reasons why Obama is on his way to victory.
on August 17,2012 | 03:00PM
tiki886 wrote:
Romney already met the requirements of the law for providing only 2 years of tax returns.

Obama has never used the word "prosperity". It is not in his vocabulary. Neither is the word "profit" in his vocabulary. You cannot tax your way into prosperity.


on August 17,2012 | 05:01PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Obama is paving the path to prosperity. How? What, specifically has he done to pave that path. I really can't think of anything but negatives (debt, raising taxes during a recession, Keystone pipeline, NLRB interference with Boeing plant opening, gulf drilling moratorium, EPA action after action, time spent on Obamacare rather than economy, outright hostility to successful people/businesses, divisive commentary regarding race and wealth, failure to deal with the fiscal cliff awaiting us on Jan 1, 2013). So, what concrete steps/accomplishments can we point to that justify what you're saying?
on August 17,2012 | 05:17PM
Pacej001 wrote:
Let me add that if the great communicator has put us on the path to prosperity, he should be able to spell that out to us simple citizens. It puzzles me that he hasn't had a news conference in two months to do just that. Even more puzzling is the following: MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who has been very public about his support for Obama, was not granted an interview with the president for the network’s Obama documentary, which will run prior to the Democratic convention. The White House offered Biden instead. MSNBC/Matthews is bending over backwards to get Obama elected and he won't grant THEM an interview? Why not? What's he so afraid of that he can't answer a few questions from the most sympathetic media outlet out there?
on August 17,2012 | 05:31PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News
Blogs
Court Sense
Musings on Shamburger

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 1

Hoops Talk
Aloha Shamburger

Political Radar
Stacked

Political Radar
HFFA

Warrior Beat
All’s fair

Political Radar
Apology