Ann Romney: "We've Given All You People Need to Know" - Polidicks

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/mitt-romney-economy_b_1690224.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false]Article here[/url] [quote]On Thursday morning's ABC Good Morning America, Ann Romney explained her and her husband's refusal to make their tax returns public for any other years than 2010 and 2011, by saying: "We've given all [that] you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life, and so the election will not be decided on that. It will be decided on who will turn the economy around, and how will jobs come back to America." Let's grant to her that Barack Obama failed the economy according to Obama's own standard: When he came into office, he predicted that if the stimulus was passed (and it was passed), unemployment would peak at 8% in 2009, and then decline to 5% by 2013. However, Obama's failure to have recognized how big an economic disaster his predecessor had left him doesn't necessarily mean that Mitt Romney wouldn't be an even worse President on the economy than Obama has turned out to be. The comparison here is Obama vs. Romney; it's not Obama vs. nothing. Romney has a record of his own to defend. Ms. Romney's claim on "how will jobs come back to America" (by electing her husband) has unfortunately nothing but Republican faith behind it, because all the facts are contrary to her claim that Mitt would make "jobs come back to America." I have shown elsewhere that Mitt's assertion that he had caused a net increase of at least 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital is a demonstrable lie, and that his Bain participation unquestionably generated a net loss of employment in this country, even considering Bain's successful start-up financing of Staples, which comprises the bulk of his claimed "producing jobs." Mitt's proposals for the economy are even worse. He passionately opposes Obama's call for federal money to pay the states to hire back some of their firefighters, police, and teachers, who have been laid off on account of the Wall Street bailout. Romney, in fact, on June 8, 2012, charged that Obama "says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government." Romney thinks that the nation's going $1.54 trillion into debt in the Wall Street bailout, so as to protect megabanks and their stockholders and bondholders and executives from the crash those mega-bank executives had caused, is good, but that keeping police and other government workers on the job to protect and serve the general public is not -- and he wants them to stay fired, if he becomes president. To him, lowering the taxes of himself and his friends is more important for the economy than is retaining the jobs of those government workers. How good for the economy are priorities like that? Ironically, on the very same day as Ms. Romney's remark, a vote was held in the Senate on "S. 3364: A bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America." It would replace an existing tax-deduction for outsourcing jobs abroad, by a new tax-deduction for insourcing jobs back from abroad. Only 40 votes were needed in order to block it by a filibuster. 42 senators, all of whom were Republicans, voted to filibuster and thus to kill it. Large international corporations wanted it killed, so as to continue receiving tax-write-offs for shipping jobs to low-wage countries. Ann Romney said that the election should be about "how will jobs come back to America." This was how Republicans were dealing with that issue. Not a single Democrat in the Senate voted that way. Romney has not made his case, no matter how bad Obama might be. Will Republicans win in 2012 by sabotaging the U.S. economy while Democrats are "in control"? Isn't that what they have been doing? Should we vote for them because they've succeeded at doing it? Isn't that what this election is really about? Is the problem that there are too few Republicans? Or that there are too many? There have been enough Republicans to sabotage the U.S. economy while corporate profits soar. Is Obama to blame for that? Should he be replaced because they have succeeded at sabotaging the U.S. economy?[/quote] article is filled with links, pretty good read.

I honestly believe nobody should have to publicly release their tax forms, no matter who you are. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] Also, it's a very bias article. Clearly a liberal writer wrote this article.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857231]I honestly believe nobody should have to publicly release their tax forms, no matter who you are. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] Also, it's a very bias article. Clearly a liberal writer wrote this article.[/QUOTE] Romney is literally the first candidate in over 30 years not to release his tax records. Even Republicans are calling him out on it. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] It's pretty clear that Romney has something to hide.

I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857231]I honestly believe nobody should have to publicly release their tax forms, no matter who you are. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] Also, it's a very bias article. Clearly a liberal writer wrote this article.[/QUOTE] A man who is in charge of the largest military force in the world should be as transparent as possible with what corporations he's been involved with.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857358]I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?[/QUOTE]the presidency of the US isn't an internet forum. there's a huge difference. if you're in charge of a country as large, powerful, and influential as the US, the people who voted for you NEED to know what your past was like.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857358]I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?[/QUOTE] Of course not. But when you're running for the office of president you're giving up a lot of privacy in order to become a public figure. I'm not saying it's necessarily right for him to give up his tax records, but by not releasing them he's bringing up far more questions than if he simply released them, unless of course he is hiding something. It's just something that comes with being a public figure.

You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.

he can keep his shit private if he wants but it makes him look like a shady motherfucker

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857420]You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE] He does. But he's shooting himself in the foot by not releasing them.

hopefully it'll be this kind of bullshit attitude that loses him the race.

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;36857448]hopefully it'll be this kind of bullshit attitude that loses him the race.[/QUOTE]the straw that breaks the camel's back, eh?

Oh, put a sock in it, woman. I bet you don't want them revealed so that you can continue to sit on your ass all day, leeching off your husband so you can live whatever lavish lifestyle it is you have. I also think it's funny the article calls her "Ms." Romney instead of "Mrs." Romney.

[QUOTE=grim0ire;36857493]the straw that breaks the camel's back, eh?[/QUOTE] must be a heavy fucking straw

[QUOTE=Roof;36857602]must be a heavy fucking straw[/QUOTE]combined with all the other crap he and his wife have said during the campaign? not really.

But badgering poor ol' obama for over a year for his birth certificate was perfectly okay, right Romneys?

'[I]You people?[/I]' what do you mean 'you people?'

[QUOTE=Lankist;36857806]'[I]You people?[/I]' what do you mean 'you people?'[/QUOTE]people who can't afford elevators [i]for their cars[/i]

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857358]I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?[/QUOTE] If I was running for the office of President, yeah, I would. I'd fuzz out things like SSN and whatnot, though. After all, I don't want my tax rates decided by someone that cheats on theirs, so knowing for sure and certain they don't is a big plus. It's a big factor in whether or not I vote for someone...or indeed vote at all, if both candidates are corrupt as fuck I won't bother voting. As an average joe, no, there's no reason for the public to see my tax returns. As the leader of a nation with enough nukes to render the entire world an inhospitable shithole, yeah, it's probably for the best that the public be able to tell I'm on the up-and-up.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857420]You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE] It was Romney's father that started the tradition of releasing your tax returns when running for Office and Romney used this to his advantage in '94 when he called out for his opponent to release his tax returns and show that he has nothing to hide. He's a huge hypocrite.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857420]You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE]Yeah but on the other side he's running for president.

[QUOTE]Romney is literally the first candidate in over 30 years not to release his tax records. Even Republicans are calling him out on it.[/QUOTE] That's just not true. He's released two years, which is the minimum that candidates release. It still applies just as much here, so I'll just repost here what I said last night. Romney's released 2 years of tax returns. McCain released 2 years of tax returns. Kerry released 5. Obama released 6. Virtually no-one in congress releases their tax returns. There's no law stating he has to release any returns at all, he's released two years because it's customary. This is flat-out insanity. There's no proof that he's "hiding something" or he "doesn't pay taxes," but just because some people don't like the guy they're piling on baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit him. This is exactly the same type of situation that the Obama birther crowd created four years ago to get people to avoid him. If you're a sane person, you didn't believe in that, and there's no reason for you to get all up in arms about Romney's taxes. Go ahead and hate his policies, pick apart the job he did at Bain and as a governor, and vote however the hell you want, but seriously, don't jump on the crazy bandwagon.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857358]I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?[/QUOTE] If I was running for president of Facepunch? Yes. I would want the entirety of Facepunch to see my tax returns, since I'd be leading them. How can they accept me as a leader if they can't trust me? [sp]Penultimate 2012[/sp]

I personally believe that our representatives should be absolutely required to release their tax returns as far back as anyone asks, because campaigning for public office means you've become a public figure, you've sacrificed your right to financial privacy because of that. If we can't see how each person in congress is effected by different tax laws, how will we ever know where the bias is? If they get to make up and decide on all the rules on how to play with everyone else's money, then how it effects their money should be open to the public, otherwise there's no way to see if the rules have been bent in their favor.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857358]I'm not saying I agree - personally I think he should, but I feel like it's his right to keep his personal stuff private. I don't blame him. Would you want your tax returns posted here on facepunch for everyone to see?[/QUOTE] If i wouldn't have to hide all those tax evasions,i would.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857420]You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE] You're right, he does have his right to privacy. And we have the right to not vote for him because he's a total moron if he thinks that his privacy is worth more than our trust when he is running for the highest office in the land.

[QUOTE=Morcam;36858994]That's just not true. He's released two years, which is the minimum that candidates release. It still applies just as much here, so I'll just repost here what I said last night. Romney's released 2 years of tax returns. McCain released 2 years of tax returns. Kerry released 5. Obama released 6. Virtually no-one in congress releases their tax returns. There's no law stating he has to release any returns at all, he's released two years because it's customary. This is flat-out insanity. There's no proof that he's "hiding something" or he "doesn't pay taxes," but just because some people don't like the guy they're piling on baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit him. This is exactly the same type of situation that the Obama birther crowd created four years ago to get people to avoid him. If you're a sane person, you didn't believe in that, and there's no reason for you to get all up in arms about Romney's taxes. Go ahead and hate his policies, pick apart the job he did at Bain and as a governor, and vote however the hell you want, but seriously, don't jump on the crazy bandwagon.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/[/url] [url]http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and-the-tax-return-precedent/[/url] Nope

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36861061][URL]http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/[/URL] [URL]http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and-the-tax-return-precedent/[/URL] Nope[/QUOTE] It says in the factcheck article Kerry released 20, when I can find here [URL]http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-16/politics/32693965_1_release-tax-tax-returns-tax-disclosure[/URL] that he released 5. I have no idea which is right? Obama released 7 tax returns in the exact same way that Romney did, in that the seventh was an estimate. It's fair to say 7, sure. I wasn't paying that much attention. When I said "customary" I mean it's customary to release at least that many. Look at the link you just posted - the number of releases varies dramatically from candidate to candidate, and it's clear that 2 is not some crazy rebellious act. When a candidate can release 5 Hell, from the article you actually just posted - [QUOTE]“There is no standard,” said Joseph J. Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit, nonpartisan publisher of tax information. “Some candidates have released a lot more returns and others about the same number. It depends on the particular politics at the time and if they are trying to pressure the people they are running against to release more of their returns. Someone will release a lot of returns when they think they have an advantage over their opponent.”[/QUOTE] The article is about whether two is standard. If you thought that's what I meant, sorry. There's still nothing wrong with what he's done, and it's still just a witch hunt.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36857420]You're right; however, he does, unfortunately, have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE] of course he fucking does and we have the right to yell at him about it

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36859338]You're right, he does have his right to privacy.[/QUOTE] Not if he wants to be president. Presidents are accountable to the people. They aren't dictators. If it isn't classified by the government, the President better damn well be willing to release it if he's asked.