Getty Images
We still don't know exactly why Mitt Romney set up a shell corporation in Bermuda, stashed cash in the Caymans, and opened a Swiss bank account. One running theory is that the Republican hoped to avoid paying U.S. taxes through offshore investments in notorious tax havens.
But today one of Romney's allies stood up for him, arguing that even if Romney was trying to circumvent American tax laws, what's so bad about that?
Mitt Romney shouldn't be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because "it's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday. [...]
Graham argued that Congress is responsible for tax avoidance because it has crafted such convoluted rules and said he was fine with Romney's taking advantage of the loopholes.
"As long as it was legal, I'm OK with it," Graham said. "I don't blame anybody for using the tax code to their advantage."
So, let me get this straight. So long as Romney didn't commit any actual felonies, the American mainstream shouldn't mind that they had to pay their tax bill, but Romney could use some creative accounting tricks, send his money to the Cayman Islands, and magically lower his own tax bill in ways average folks can't.
And this is a defense? From one of Romney's Republican allies?
For that matter, as the Obama campaign's Ben LaBolt argued over the weekend, "Mitt Romney is effectively saying he hasn't technically broken any laws by keeping his money in offshore tax havens. Here's the question: is not technically breaking the law a high enough standard for someone who wants to be president of the United States?"
If Lindsey Graham is parroting the Romney campaign's new talking points, I'm afraid Republicans might need a better argument.
Leave a Comment:
$10 Billion + of your taxpayer dollors to Goldman Sachs for the bailout.....Goldman Sachs top donor to Obama campaign. Are you ppl really going to let political ideology blind you to the truth. Dems are just as culpable as Repubs to corporate cronnyism be it whatever company for whatever reason. The worse part is Obama campaigned on "change" and transparancy, and it is status quo corrupt backscratching gov at its finest. I know facts are hard to swallow when your whole belief system that the democrat party is for the "common folk" starts to crumble in the face of reality.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Crap, I meant to reply, not up.
The argument seems to be both parties are equally bad, when that is not true. The democratic party platform is one that opens pathways to success for working people. Whereas the republican party says cut taxes and trickle down from the top down.
Trying to get people to say because the democratic people take money, we should vote for those handful that do not take money and then drop out because no money, then lose election.
That's not going to work, the money system needs to be stopped, but by voting for those not taking money will not stop it.
I give kudos to candidates for trying to not take money, but one recourse voters have is the site you post to know whom is giving money to whom.
I do not think that we can tell banks and Wall st. to f off, even though I'd like to. I just do the best I can to make a choice that I can live with. Banks and Wall St. played us all for fools. Regulate them. Would McCain regulate, probably not. McCain would have us in Iran, spending and dying even more. We'd still be in Iraq. It was other than money donors that decide elections. And, can you imagine SP if the worst happened?
Now, you and I will not agree on much, but using the site for money donors is a valuable tool. To be used along with other things like wars, Rmoney would have us bombing Iran, perhaps escalate elsewhere, when most people here want us to leave.
lol..."pathways" that will leave your grandkids with trillions in unpaid bills. Democrat policies leave ppl in a circle of entitlements, governments broke, and promises that lead to unentended consequences....just look at Europe, Spain just had to enact a 21% sales tax to pay for their big government. I am a libertarian who believes in the individual, the family, states rights and charity to prosper, not a endless money pit sucking the life out of taxpayers that is now the power hungry federal gov. Cute phrases they put on policies like "the patriot act", and 'the affordable health care act" is just a smoke screen to grab more and more centralized gov power. Todays republicans are liberal progressives lites when it come to fiscal responsiblity.
I don't have grandkids, but I do care about my relatives, friends and even people I don't know. I want jobs first and foremost. The debt and deficit is also important to me, but we should get employment up, get economy rolling first, then tackle the debt after that. Cutting would definitely NOT help unemployed, but make a larger pool of people looking for jobs. Perhaps placing those looking for two years to side again to hire those that just lost their job, when it worsens the economic buying power.
Looneytarians don't care about anyone but themselves and their malign ideology. They relish an opportunity to hurt others.
....lol, thats insightful....I guess demtards need a crutch and a higher power to exist in their utiopian world of endless taxdollars and deamonize individual success which really equates to envy. Liberals cry inclusion, except for those who don't buy into their futile baby birds with beaks wide open big gov idealogy.
Typical rhetoric, personal attacks Entropy means you lost the argument in the face of reality thats goes against your twisted bs idelology. You realize I'm right so you resort to personal attacks. Next up, i'm sure some forum moderator will ban me because I don't "follow the flock" in these dicussions. Thats usually step two after personal attacks in the liberal mindset.
Timmy3-ignore You are not offering anything but insults now.
i believe I was insulted first Sandy by Entropy.... Libertarians stick up for themselves. Those comments were directed at him\her.
Those on the right have no legitimate claim to civility, much less courtesy. People who are aggressisvely malicious deserve to be smacked down hard.
So just because someone believes in a conservative, traditional, less government, more power to the ppl political ideology they need to be "smacked down hard"?....lol, easy for you to say behind the internet. Anytime anywhere sir, bet you'd never write a check your ass can't cash son....douchebag.
When those on the right lie, whine piteously when they are called out for their lies, sneer and bluster impotently, etc., they might get what they so richly deserve, and they absolutely hate it when that happens. Those on the right are despicable, therefore, I despise them. That's all there is to it, whether they like it or not. It is high time they were stopped, by whatever means are necessary to do so, from trying to destroy this country.
The elitists, the liberal lapdog media, and the corporate oligarchy wouldn't allow such a true statesman, constitutionalist, and a true common folk politician like Ron Paul to be elected. They would actully be scared that the status quo control over our government might be held accountable for once....
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005906&cycle=2012
Name me ONE fiscally responsible federal gov program, policy, legislation that has record so far and i'll print this page out and eat it.
What Lindsey fails to disclose is these loopholes are created by corporate lawyers and handed to a lawmaker. They submit it as law verbatim, and buy votes with campaign contributions. When a do gooder wants to repeal these laws like the carried interest loophole, they send in lobbyists and pay them millions of dollars to keep it open. He makes it seem like these loopholes just appear in nature. He is a big part of the problem. I remember when paying your tax was a patriotic duty. Mitt wants to increase defence spending but doesn't want to pay for it.