Well blanks,

Do you know for a fact, that the returns are going to be released?

Nope.

So, unless you have a crystal ball, it seems like, yet again, you are talking out of your ass.

Totally agree, Shooter - Romney/Ryan should continue to take a hard line stance on this, and explain to the american people loud and clear what we are and are not entitled to.

Thank you. Why don't we start with not being entitled to due process before Obama kills you?

Sorry - It's too early in the morning for me to try to cypher out your incoherence.

blanks,

off topic and out of your mind. Again.

But since you go there, your great buddy Bush did the same thing you accuse Obama of:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-bush-signs-un-american-military-commissions-act-aclu-says-new-law-underm

It's not about what's legal. It's about the amount of disclosure that voters perceive to be necessary.

Romney has two choices: he can release at least ten years worth of returns and take his chances on the Dems making hay over what's in there. Or, he can continue to maintain the untenable: that ONLY he has no duty to disclose the information.

If he chooses the former, the issue might go away. With the latter, he all but loses his already slim chances for victory in November.

And at 1.3, Shooter: Huh? What are you on?

Fine. Means we get to continue to speculate about what could possibly be in them that's worse for him than constant replays of an increasingly credible rumor that he paid next to taxes for about a decade, and how that seemingly impossible 150 million dollar IRA plays into that. Oh, and we get to keep talking about the odd coincidence of an emptied out UBS Swiss account showing upon his 2010 returns two years after the IRS amnesty program for the tax cheats UBS ratted out and wonder out loud whether that's the real thing he's hiding.

And when people like you take umbrage at the speculating, we get to remind you of how smug you were about Romney's refusal to share the information that would end the speculation and tell you to shut your hypocritical pieholes.

Mr. Mitty just needed his diaper changed. This is how he goes about it.

as helpfully posted to the MaddowBlog on a number of occasions by Rollo-5302374 (and big thanks to Rollo for tracking this down):

shooter242
June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

And that is the only reason needed to ignore Shooter.

Pretzelogic ... The one positive thing I will say about Shooter is that at least he sticks around to debate. When people respond to his posts, he often comes back to answer, thus demonstrating accountability.

That's not the case with many of the conservatrolls. Especially most of those who suddenly found the blog over the weekend. They made "hit and run" posts that seldom went beyond mere insults. They made themselves look illiterate, silly and uninformed. People responded. They ran away without defending themselves. Just like their hero, the cowardly bully Romney.

Give Shooter credit at least for not being part of THAT crowd.

Give Shooter credit at least for not being part of THAT crowd.

Nope. I don't give "style points" to trolls. And, FWIW, neither should anyone else. He's never shown any interest that I could detect in honest debate, so... best ignored.

;-)

Boy, mpguy sure got that one wrong. There isn't even the slightest hint of an attempt at good faith discussion. Mr. Mitty MO is simply disrupt and pollute. It is not to discuss. It is to disrupt and pollute. Ignoring is advisable at times. At other times, it is advisable to tear down his idiotic point, then ridicule and insult him. He truly deserves the latter, but does not deserve to be taken as an honest partner in discussion.

mpguy re #1.3 One used to be assured of due process before being executed, commonly known as Habeas Corpus. Obama has now abrogated that right by killing someone without a trial, hearing or anything else.

That said, I actually can't disagree with assassinating the terrorist he killed but it's the first publicly acknowledged official sanction.

Steve, we'll be happy to accept the conjecture that Romney paid no taxes for ten years, true or not. Compared to the question of why Obama hides his college career and allowed one of his representatives to advertise his birth in Kenya, it's small beer.

Pretzel, if you have a question or a point you wish to contest, I'll be glad to oblige. And yes Steely Dan is one of my all time favorites.

I'd go easy on the "murderer" thing. Let's not move in the direction of the loony right-wing paranoia/conspiracy folks.

There are lots of effective ways to make a case that draws an indirect line from things Romney has done at Bain, for example, to a loss of health and life. That's what the Priorities USA ad did. Perfectly OK to make that connection. There are no doubt many more stories out there like Soptic's, including some where the loss of health care led more directly to a loss of life.

I agree that Romney doubled down on his "hit the poor and powerless where it really hurts" philosophy when he chose Ryan. That's what bullies do. And Romney is the classic bully.

Actually, not quite, since too easily it is put off the real consequences of the extreme wealthy's actions. When you know out right the affects will lead to the illnesses and deaths of too many people. I don't have a problem calling them murderers, when they have caused more damage, misery, despair and death in this world by those very actions that they do. Everyone wants to talk about the extreme wealthy like they have done such good things, but when the ugly truth comes out what things that these wealthy people will really do to gain wealth there is let's tone it down or silenced. No, it is high time we really do see these real problems that happen when you have these people who are so greedy.

Those that pay the lower rates are those who lobbied Congress for those lower tax rates. Jeez. You never heard of the golden rule -- them with the gold, rule!???

"If we are really outraged that everyone pays a lower tax rate on investment income compared to the earned income rate shouldn't we be attacking those that created this unfairness,"

And those people would be, among others, Mitt Romney, who no doubt had lobbyists in DC keeping his tax sheltters all hunkey-dorey safe.

Of course, it's not all just about his tax rate...It's also about the $$ he didn't pay any taxes on, and who he made charitable contributions to, and many others factors.

Sorry, the Olympics are over. And in any case, they dropped "Bending Yourself into an Intellectual Pretzel to Rationalizing the Indefensible" was only a demonstration event, introduced in 2004 and dropped after 2008.

It's pretty simple. Romney and Ryan are running on the idea of fixing the government through cutting taxes and entitlements. We certainly need and deserve to know how their taxes play into that. Because right now, Romney is the wizard of Oz, hidden behind the curtain pretending to be a leader. I can't imagine Americans electing a guy like that.

I seriously doubt Romney has his personal lobbyists out running around DC trying to keep his tax rates down. That's a bogus argument.

Keeping long-term capital gains rates low something that economists on BOTH sides of the aisles generally agree encourages investment that leads to growth. I don't begin for a second that the people in this place will agree with that, but it's a policy that I believe in and that a lot of people that are a lot smarter than me or you have demonstrated is a key factor in encouraging growth.

Unfortunately for a guy like Romney, the optics of it don't play well in situations like this, when the politics of envy and class warfare are the platform he's having to battle.

Randy ... Republicans started a class war in the 1980s. It's been amazingly successful. Just look at the transfer of wealth between deciles over that period.

The only surprise is that it took almost three decades for the middle and lower classes to start fighting back. If Republicans didn't want to be in a fight, they shouldn't have started one.

I know you won't agree, but I don't at all blame the increasing stratification of our society on Republicans starting "class war". It is a VERY complex set of issue, but I think it's largely rooted in globalization. In this global economy, there is the "information class" that has the tools/skills/education/knowledge to create/make wealth, and there's everyone else. That's a global shift that began in the 1960s and is going to continue and even accelerate, regardless of which party is in power.

It's a politically and socially difficult truth to accept, but the world has changed and the nature of income, wealth creation and distribution, and what skills/knowledge it takes to maintain a middle-class existence has changed, permanently. I don't see that as republican or democratic, just global economics. Shaping policies that improve America's competitiveness in that face of that global reality is paramount.

There is no empirical evidence that keeping capital gains rates low encourages growth. There is such evidence that it doesn't. The Reagan boom occurred the capital gains break was eliminated. The Bush bust--a time when median household income declined by 2000.00 even as job growth slowed--was fueled by historically low capital gains rates.

The only "investment" that spurs economic growth is the actual investment of money into businesses--venture capital, IPOs, private business investment and that represents a tiny percentage of all gains subject to low capital gains treatment. Gains on dividends and sales of shares of stock that were issued decades ago, passive gain on inherited property with a low basis, the overwhelming majority of the income that gets capital gains treatment, adds nothing to the economy other than the fact that it generates income which may get spent, just like wages and business earnings.

On the contrary, the capital gains break incentivizes money-hoarding in unproductive economic activity and distorts the economy by magnifying the potential downside risk of actually injecting capital into businesses.

Nonsense, Randy. Yes, I'm SHOCKED that you don't think Republicans had anything to do with the decline of the U. S. middle class.

This isn't rooted in "globalization" or any other " -ization." It isn't about computer skills, or It's about the decline of unions/organized labor, which has always been at the forefront of the Republican Party goals.

Had workers received compensation increases in line with their increased productivity, our economy would be healthier and the middle class much more stable.

It isn't an outside threat that will eventually do in the U. S. The increasingly uneven distribution of wealth is a much more serious threat.

Bad editing on my part. In the second paragraph above, "It isn't about computer skills or any other lack of skills. It's about . . . "

I laugh every time I hear the conspiracy theory that the Republicans are responsible for all the woes of this country when both parties, the Republicans and Democrats (most of which belong to the 1% club) were present and accounted for on every single major Congressional and Presidential decision.

When are we going to realize the true foe in this fight for equality is the ENTIRE government and how they rule for themselves first and foremost?

He doesn't think that in the least. It will be an issue all the way through the election. He's just going to live with it as an issue though, because disclosing his taxes won't make the issue go away, it will make it much MUCH worse. If the truth of his wealth were laid bare and all the gory details of how and where he has money were out there, it would be 1000x worse than just listening to the whining of the dems.

The "truth of his wealth" and "the gory details of how and where he has money" are genuinely substantive issues which the American public has a right to examine before being asked to make a choice about who should be the Chief Executive. So sorry that the "whining of the dems" is so unpleasant for you - perhaps you should go back to burying your head in the "sand" (or wherever you've been keeping it).

Now I want to see both Rawmoney's and Ryan's long-form worth-certificates!

I don't think it is "the politics of envy" so much as is he hiding money in foriegn banks to avoid paying taxes on it.

"...when there's no legal basis for doing so."

Your last point is excellent because that's Romney's MO. Don't bother giving details or informing the public unless your legally required while lobbyists make changes in the law to further game the system to serve the wealthy and large corps.

I'll reiterate what I said above. Either he releases them, or he all but gives up his chance to win.

You may be right, but I'm amazed that Romney would allow himself to be cornered like this. If he's refusing to release them because it would satisfy the Dems, their strategy has been unusually brilliant. They just about have him checkmated.

Terriels - you lack a very basic understanding of the tax code if you think "hiding money in foreign banks" allows Romney (or anyone else) to "avoid paying taxes" on any taxable gains/income from those assets.

If you're an American citizen and you realize gains or income on those assets, you pay taxes on them. Even if they're in a foreign bank account. Taxes 101. Get a clue. There is nothing "evil" or "wrong" or "sinister" about having a foreign bank account, or assets held outside of the U.S. In this global economy it is both common and in many instances it it the best and most appropriate thing to do.

Romney is invested in a number of funds/LPs that are not domiciled in the U.S. He pays taxes on those, to the degree that they generate income or capital gains distributions. So do LOTS of people.

mpguy - you may be right. The truth is, it might be impossible for America to elect a really really rich guy. We live in a society where a lot of people have very little, and are also surrounded by media that preaches and teaches that they should have and deserve to have it all. Watch a any rap video (if you can tolerate it) as exhibit 101.

There is no way you can have as much money as Mitt has, and have made it the way he made it (in business, investing, buying/selling companies, creating and executing complex capital markets transactions) and somehow be understandable or relevant to 80% of Americans.

I don't think Mitt will release his back tax returns, even under mounting pressure. It will be an ongoing negative, and an ongoing issue that the Dems will use. The question is whether those types of issues are ultimately what the election get decided on. It's obvious that his selection of Ryan is an effort to change the debate and make it about issues rather than personal sniping. Time will tell whether that's successful.

More nonsense, Randy. Rich guys get elected all the time.

The Kennedy wealth makes Romney look like a pauper. Very few people resented it or made a big issue of it. That's because Jack, Bobby, and Teddy, for whatever faults they had, used their wealth, power, and position to advocate for the poor and relatively powerless.

They constantly pushed for programs, and the higher taxes to pay for them, even when it would cost them money. They were the opposite of Romney--someone born on third base who has always sought to extend his own power and position at the expense of those who have less.

Romney's problem isn't that Americans don't understand him. It's that they understand him all too well.

you lack a very basic understanding of the tax code if you think "hiding money in foreign banks" allows Romney (or anyone else) to "avoid paying taxes" on any taxable gains/income from those assets... Get a clue

Are you sure your name isn't Randy Bullpucky? If you're going to accuse others of lacking understanding, you should probably be more careful not to cluelessly lack such understanding yourself. For example, if "hiding money in foreign banks" didn't allow Rawmoney and others to "avoid paying taxes", why, pray tell, would the IRS have had to institute tax amnesty for precisely that practice?

Tax Amnesty for Foreign Accounts Ending (8/8/2011)

Rawmoney's money hasn't been hanging out in the Caymans just to catch the sun, bubba!

I demand to see the long-form worth-certificates most especially because I want to know what taxes may have been dodged, perhaps to be paid "retroactively" -if at all- and what foreign interests may be exerting financial influences on a man who seeks to be installed as the leader of my country (let alone as the putative "leader of the Free World")! The people have a right to know!

Pretzelogic - Amnesty was granted for thieves that HID foreign bank accounts in an attempt to thwart the IRS. Nobody is accusing Romney of HIDING assets in foreign bank accounts. He has a number of foreign investments and bank accounts that are DECLARED and the proceeds of which are part of his tax returns. If you don't understand that difference, you're an idiot.

Your argument, along with Terriel's equating foreign bank accounts to tax fraud is just ignorance piled on top of ignorance.

"He has a number of foreign investments and bank accounts that are DECLARED..."

How do we know this? Because it's in his returns? What returns? It's way beyond "Taxes 101".

What returns? Exactly. Randy, I assure you I do understand the difference quite clearly, as I suspect does Terriel. Either you don't understand, or, for ideological reasons, are choosing to pretend not to. You should be careful who you're calling an idiot if you're going to insist on sounding so idiotic yourself. Either way, more Bullpucky!

Amnesty was granted for thieves that HID foreign bank accounts in an attempt to thwart the IRS

Herp! Derp! And how do we know that Rawmoney wasn't such a "thief"? To my knowledge, Rawmoney hasn't released one complete tax return yet, only partially released the two most recent forms (each of which was from after the amnesty ended). And, evidently, he doesn't intend to complete even the forms he has released. The part that's missing is a critical form, the FBAR, required by the IRS with the returns filed by any holder of a foreign bank account, which details the specifics of such accounts. No one's accusing Rawmoney of hiding money in foreign accounts... yet... because we still don't know those details. The longer he insists on hiding those very details, the more it appears that he may have been or may even still be hiding money in foreign accounts. That ought to be clear enough now, or am I typing too fast for you?

If such insinuations are, as Rawmoney himself said in reaction to Sen. Reid, demonstrably false, he can easily demonstrate their falsity - and put all our suspicious little minds at ease - by simply releasing his tax returns!

Stupid is as stupid does, bubba.

I demand to see the long-form worth certificates!

;-)

The ENVY thing is totally wrong. Please folks, stop repeating that lie. And yes, we do elect rich people. They just need to relate to the common person and have empathy. Isn't Barack Obama rich from book sales? Rmoney is so uncouth to say I don't trust these 7-11 cookies that are the neighborhood bakery favorites. He doesn't GET us and

Offshoring of money that is purported to be capital invested in economy. It doesn't do anything to create jobs here, which has been the number one issue that Republicans avoid with their bogus trickle down, which as Pretzel said before is more like a golden shower upon those of us that lost jobs, need health care and worry about bills. The solution we ask for is jobs, health care solutions, not handouts. But they keep saying envy, lazy, workers are greedy.

CEO pay has gone from 25 times the average employee salary in 1970 to 90 times the average salary in 2000. It's about fairness AND overall economy. Most people do not expect to become wealthy and agree to work for fair wages that still leaves profit for CEO and shareholders. The stock option packages ramp the 90 times up to 500 times.

http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2008/07/ceo-salaries--1.html

We have no problem paying the top Execs 20 times our salary for they take risk and provide jobs, but these days they point fingers at employees as the first to be cut. Not because they are not performing, but because they want to make 500 times those employees (that may be in some other country) doing customer service jobs and a good job if they are not being told faster and more is better than quality. Employees take that as "cut corners", making safety and quality-secondary.

Rmoney and Ryan are all about cutting jobs and wages/benefits of working people. Bain Capital and Ryan plan cut jobs and give vouchers to Medicare patients. Privatization usually costing taxpayers more for less service, or just no service.

Also the tax returns MIA and offshore accounts are declared, so how do we know anything, let alone what may not be declared?

Those CEO's earned that rise in compensation and ratio to worker pay over the years by keeping wages down relative to worker productivity. That's their job, and they did it. The adage "If you want something, work for it. If you want more, work more" was put into practice for 40 years by the American worker and obviously does not apply.