Romney Doesn’t Want To Give Obama A Present
This really makes no sense… unless it really is a gift.
I’ll release those on April 15, and the reason is very simple: I want to beat Barack Obama. I don’t want to give the Democrats a nice little present of having multiple releases. We’re going to have one release.
I’m not buying the little “multiple releases” add on.
Jed Lewison sums it up:
So the question is: what is there in his returns that he thinks would be such a nice little present? And why doesn’t he think Republican primary voters should know what they’re buying before it’s too late to return the “gift”?
I can’t wait to open that box!
Puh-lease! They ALL are the gifts that keep on giving but Romney has so many short circuits in that artificial intelligence of his.
“Want to make a bet? $10,000 right now!”
ZZZTT
Apparently Romney has found a little trick to get around tens of millions in inheritance taxes:
I think Romney will be almost happy to lose because he won’t have to release his returns. He was smart not to release them before he won the nomination.
“How do you do that when the maximum contribution is $44K/year?”
Easy. He’s been contributing for 2,272 years.
That explains everything – Mitt is a vampire.
Rmoney doesn’t want to release his tax returns because he doesn’t want to reveal how much he gives to the LDS church, and we know how much they spent against Prop 8 in California.
Also, if he’s off-shoring his $$$ in the Cayman Islands, not to hide the funds, then why doesn’t he bank it in the US?
“he doesn’t want to reveal how much he gives to the LDS church,”
I hadn’t thought of that. The “christian” wingnuts regard LDS as a cult, so Rmoney probably doesn’t want to appear THAT mormon.
Candidate barack Obama did not release his tax returns until sometime in march of 2008
I am sure that the media will some how try to put a negative tone on romney giving millions, or tens of millions to his church.
I think the media are very hipocritical. Like any of them have given millions to their church. I think if I was in the public eye, and was always being hounded by the media, I think I would have one basic rule as far as answering there question. They could ask me anything they wanted, proffessional or personal, and I would promise to answer, as long as I could ask them the same question, and they would have to answer first. That would be My policy. I am quite sure that would dramatically limit which reporters would ask which questions.
I don’t think you have to spin it. If someone can give millions to a church it means they have hundreds of millions in the bank. That’s going to be a liability for Romney.
Also, I don’t think you get how the media is supposed to work. They ask questions on our behalf. Not because they get off on it.
I’m guessing that he will release ONLY his 2011 tax records. I am guessing that the older ones contain tax evasion information that would make him entirely unelectable. He cannot release them and remain a viable candidate.
Wait and see… 2011 only and some excuse as to why that is good enough.
Jason, I don’t think having alot of money in the bank makes you unelectable. If you went to a high school, and took a survey of graduating seniors, and asked them how many of them would like to be rich and successfull from their careers, I bet you would get a high percentage of them who said yes. Because most people don’t become rich financially, you assume they are jealous and angry at those who do, and there is certainly a percentage of the people who feel that way. But at the same time, many people look at it a different way, if that man could become rich and successful in this country, maybe I can become rich and successful in this country. That is the way I look at it and I think there are a high percentage of people who feel that way. And even if they don’t think they can become rich and successful, there can still be a lot of respect towards someone who has. It is really no different than kids looking up to a very successful college professor or a great athlete. Many people hope they can be just as successful, or more. But at the same times, many people who don’t become that great college professor or that great athlete still look up to that person. I am a golfer. I grew up in El Paso Texas. I took up golf the year Lee Trevino (who was living in El paso at the time) won the us open the british open and the canadian open in 20 days, in 1971. Of course after that, he was our hero. Lee also won the us open in 1968 out of no where. Most people know Lee Trevino for his humor as well as his golf. One of the stories he tells is that he always told jokes. But nobody used to laugh, then he won the 1968 U.S. Open and everyone started laughing like hell at the same Jokes he had already been telling.
The point is, many people, (but not all), look up to people who have been successful in the various walks of life.
“If you went to a high school, and took a survey of graduating seniors, and asked them how many of them would like to be rich and successfull from their careers, I bet you would get a high percentage of them who said yes. ”
Except for the ones whose dads were laid off by Mitt Romney.
And in a way, everyone who is unemployed now has been laid off by Mitt Romney, or somebody like Mitt Romney.
Rusty is so adorable in his defense of Mitt. Of course, Mitt’s problems have very little to do with his being wealthy. It’s how he made that money and how he was able to pay very little in taxes that will hurt him.
And now he’s backed himself into another corner. At Thursday night’s debate he said he would release his tax forms for more than one year. Oops! I’m thinking that wasn’t part of the plan, but it is now.
The media ask question on our behalf not because they get off on it.
Main stream media is a business, just like the medical business or the legal business. They are all owned by businesses trying to make money. The more viewership they get, the more money they make. We are long past the days of the news media just “reporting” the news.
So do they “get off on it” yes, they create controversy and intrigue, which dramatically ups viewership, and increases profits. So a great deal of their motivation for a particular question is much more than just getting information on your behalf, it is often to make themselves look intelligent, and gain viewership which in turn increases profits. It would be very naive to think otherwise. Just like if you are sick, and you go to a Doctor these days. Medicine is a business, the more time they take to cure you, and the more prescriptions they prescribe, and the more doctors they make you see, the more money they make. It is no different with the media, It is just that when you are in the public eye, you don’t have very much control over it. I am all for vetting a candidate, but when you ask romney about massachussetts health care for the gazillionth time (to use pandora’s math), it is getting a little old. we know his answer. They are not asking that question on our behalf they are 100% sensationalizing.
Pandora, do you actually pretend to understand the intricacies of the venture capital business, and how hundreds of thousands of business in the U.S. have used that system to help start or run or grow their business.
And why shouldn’t she understand the venture capital business? She’s got a better grasp of the issues at stake here than you do, that is for certain.
so it’s sensationalizing to ask questions….
I suppose fox news’ obsession with Obama’s birth certificate was just fair and balanced vetting.
Rusty, you’re backing a bad horse in this one. Romney, on top of everything else, is now a man who wont live up to his father’s example. (illegal mexican immigrant father)
He’s done. just back newt and join the kamakazi mission
Pandora, do you actually pretend to understand the intricacies of the venture capital business, and how hundreds of thousands of business in the U.S. have used that system to help start or run or grow their business.
Putting aside your patronizing crap, Rusty, if your case is that the average person doesn’t actually “understand the intricacies of the venture capital business” then Mitt is in big trouble.
But Pandora, do you pretend to understand the intricacies of venture capitalism.
I would say I understand more than the average person, but that really doesn’t matter. What matters is that you and your candidate have lost the argument.
But if it makes you feel better… your defense was very Mittish. How’s that “you little people are too stupid to understand the intricacies of venture capitalism” working out for you guys?