Home > Uncategorized > When a Tax Cut isn’t a Tax Cut and other Presidential Race Related Meanderings

When a Tax Cut isn’t a Tax Cut and other Presidential Race Related Meanderings

So I was in the midwest vacationing and visiting family.  I don’t have cable at home, so I wash myself in the cable news when I’m spending any kind of time in a hotel (or rented home with cable).  I don’t know why I do it.  I’m usually fuming by the time I switch it off.  It’s not just Fox News that pisses me off.  CNN is actually worse in a way, because you expect them to be journalists along the lines of Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather.  The only real news anymore is McNeil-Lehrer, which is deemed “heady” for market standards, but really isn’t much different from the CBS World News Tonight in the Cronkite era.  Our standards have just lowered.

Yes, there’s a meme out there about the “liberal media establishment,” which basically consists of all media not owned by Murdoch or the Moonies.  And the ascent of Fox ratings, along with the push for entertainment format, clearly has the mainstream media grovelling to avoid even the impression of liberal bias.  As FAIR has pointed out, right wingers are interviewed on the talking head shows much more frequently than liberals – even on McNeil-Lehrer.  So when they are compelled to report that the Swift Boaters are slandering a liberal candidate like John Kerry, they feel obliged to point out the Kerry played with some statistics to make some obscure argument about the economy and report the two occurrences in some equivalent fashion.  Or when President Bush, after having referred to his Social Security “reform” package as privatization, then freaked out when his focus groups didn’t like the term, declared that any reporter using the term “privatization” to describe his plan was foregoing objectivity and showing political bias.   And the “liberal media” more often than not, caves – the conservatives having played the ref effectively.

So it was that last week I was watching a daytime CNN show hosted by a woman named Soledad O’Brien.  I think I have the name right anyway.  She was reporting on the conflict over the potential sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts.  As before, Obama is pushing a bill which will preserve the cuts for 99 percent of the public, and calling for a separate vote on the other two percent.  The Republicans are well on message, claiming that Obama is exhibiting political gamesmanship (truth to tell, he is, but that’s really beside the point), and intending to filibuster (if necessary) any bill which does not incorporate the top one percent as well (who would still get the lion’s share of the cuts under Obama’s plan as well).

Anyway, the point is that the Republicans are willing to hold the 99 percent hostage in order to preserve the massive cuts for the  top.  But not only was O’Brien careful to avoid that point, she would not even refer to Obama’s plan as a tax cut plan.  She talked about Republicans trying to sell their tax cut plan and Obama trying to sell his “economic message.”  That Republicans in voting to kill Obama’s plan are actually essentially voting for a tax increase for the middle class didn’t even come up in explicit terms (I did switch over to Chuck Todd on MSNBC, and he did ask the question, though avoided the “hostage” terminology the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is using – the response from the Republican Governor of New Hampshire was that the Republicans wouldn’t be voting for a tax increase (and thus they wouldn’t be violating their lame oath to Grover Norquist, who will probably give special dispensation as he did with the payroll tax vote) because a few Democrats in the Senate (McCaskill, Tester, and others in tough reelection races) opposed “Obama’s economic plan” as well.  But O’Brian wouldn’t touch it.  It was Republicans for tax cuts and Democrats opposed, with Obama trying to be cute.  She asked some Republican whose name I don’t remember if they would be willing to hold two separate votes, he didn’t give her a straight answer, and she didn’t press.

So here’s the graph that tells the story.  I think it gets bigger if you double click on it.

The mantra is that Obama’s plan impacts small businesses.  It does.  about three percent of them.

Democrats are pressing Romney on the hostage issue, but they should be pressing Republicans in the Senate and House, and their own conservatives.  It appears, with regard to the latter, that Reid did just that.  The Republicans were calling his bluff and a vote, so they wouldn’t have to filibuster.  But it looks like Reid won over a few of the scared conservative Democrats, and now the Republicans are scrambling for a strategy.  Looks like they’ll have to filibuster the extension of middle class tax cuts.

….

By the way, the more people learn about “Obamacare,” the more they like it, myself included.  So says the recent polling.

….

Purely as a strategy, it appears that Obama’s attacks on the Bain issue are drawing blood, partly due to Romney’s lame response, which is reminiscent of Kerry in response to the Swift Boat libelers.  Between the SCOTUS decision and the weak jobs report, you would think Romney would have Obama on the ropes right now.  Obama has him cornered for the moment, and Romney and his surrogates are just digging a deeper hole.  The polling in key states has Obama with a big electoral vote advantage, and Nate Silver has his chances of reelection at 66 percent.

The gist of the controversy, for those of you who never watch cable news, is that Romney had previously bragged about his performance at the company.  Then it turned out that much of their profitability came at the expense of American workers as they made an art out of increasing productivity with outsourcing.  All of the sudden Romney claimed that he wasn’t so involved with Bain, and in fact he wasn’t involved at all from 1999 to 2002 when he was managing the Olympics in Utah.   The problem is that the SEC filings for the company list him in various positions, such as “Managing Member” in 2002, which he says were essentially in title only.  Obama’s team came out aggressively, claiming that either Romney is lying now, or committed a felony in misrepresenting his involvement to the SEC back then.  This has Romney’s team whining loudly, demanding apologies, etc. – but it doesn’t have Romney showing everyone his tax returns so we can know whether he was paid a salary for doing nothing.   Even some of his Republican buddies are asking him to do just that.

From Huffpo:

Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm.

The mountain of evidence that Romney had a connection to the firm after 1999 leaves him with two possible explanations, neither of them political appealing: Either Romney was officially in charge of the company but took no actual responsibility for it, or he was involved then and is either lying or shading the truth now.

The Sunday talking head shows this morning were all about Bain Capital and the SEC, with Romney’s surrogates on the defense.  Karl Rove, famous for “taking his opponent’s strengths and turning them into weaknesses” was practically begging Obama to ease up.  But Obama and other Democrats taste blood.  And then there’s this ad, on par with Reagan’s  “out of gas” commercial in 1980.

It’ll probably die down soon, but Josh Marshal explains why this last week may have been crucial to the campaign.  Whether Romney did anything wrong, it has him running from his own record.  Bain was supposed to be a political boon – an example of his private sector savvy and leadership.  It’s probably gone, and I wonder if he’ll even mention Bain come the convention.

For the record, Factcheck.org maintains its prior analysis that Romney was not in charge of Bain when it did all that outsourcing.  They consulted a law professor who told them that SEC filings routinely contain names of people holding positions in title only, rather than reporting the people doing the actual work.  If they’re correct, it certainly suggests that the SEC and the laws they are supposed to be enforcing are a farce.  What’s the point of requiring the reports if they don’t name the person to be held accountable?

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.

I don’t know.  I normally have great respect for Factcheck.org, but there seems to be a profound lack of questioning on their part as to why he would be named “managing member” when he has no involvement?  They just seem to accept that as factual and sensible, as if it’s self-evident.  Maybe there’s a legit reason to do that, but they certainly haven’t provided one.

….

One of the big concerns for Democrats are the nullification laws being passed by Republican-held legislatures in key states, such as Pennsylvania.  Nate Silver analyzes the potential effect.

….

Sarah Palin has not been invited to the GOP convention.  I think it’s safe to rule her out as a VP candidate.

….

Lastly, lest you think I’m overjoyed about Obama’s reelection, another reason to demand that he boot Tim Geitner right out of his cabinet – knowing full well that it won’t happen.

  1. What Now
    July 16, 2012 at 12:21 am

    If Mittens were caught telling the truth, the low-life dirtbag would just try to lie his way out of it.

  2. unanonymous
    July 16, 2012 at 5:04 am

    yawn, I am surprised the herald is regurgitating cable news tripe.

  3. Just Middle Finance
    July 16, 2012 at 7:45 am

    More class warfare from H & Co. What America needs is less taxes for the successful Americans so they can create more opportunity for everyone. Tax money that goes to the poor is money down the drain. The banks use tax money to fuel the American economy. Mitt Romney wants to create employment opportunities for everyone, not just the Americans in his town. Capitalism requires all the workers of the world compete with each other for jobs. Just as the business owners must compete for customers around the world.

  4. Just Middle Finger
    July 16, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Romney is so cynical its scary. The best reason to vote for Obama is because he’s not Romney.

  5. Just Middle Finger
    July 16, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Oh, and why doesn’t he crow more about managing a successful olympics in Utah? Could it be the $700+ million in public subsidies that saved it from a being a fiasco? 3/4 of a billion of taxpayer money can turn just about any event around. And by the way, how does that square up with small government?

  6. July 16, 2012 at 9:41 am

    A vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. Not voting third party just makes it easier for Obama or Romney to win. Past two- term Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, should be on the ballot in all 50 states come November. He’s your best choice: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

  7. Felix
    July 16, 2012 at 9:42 am

    No, NAFTA (and the other trade agreements) “requires all the workers of the world compete with each other.” We were once protected from this ‘competition.’ I suppose in the Marxist defintion, ‘capitalism’ does require this AND THAT’S WHY THEY SAY IT’S EVIL!
    If you swallow the ‘job creator’ myth why are we here now? They’ve had their tax breaks for years and they have put us right here. MORE opportunity? Spare me. Mitt “wants to create employment opportunities for everyone, not just the Americans in HIS TOWN.” Yes, he will outsource and outsource and outsource until there are NO jobs in America at all! And you think he’s some kind of patriot? Tool!

  8. HUUFC
    July 16, 2012 at 9:43 am

    Nice to hear you hate people that have more or different things than you, just like obummer.

  9. Mitch
    July 16, 2012 at 9:47 am

    “If they’re correct, it certainly suggests that the SEC and the laws they are supposed to be enforcing are a farce.”

    Is that news, Eric? After the last few years?!

    Thing is, people in Romney’s position are so used to having it both ways that it probably never even occurs to them that they’re either lying or being paid for doing absolutely nothing. Sorry, but I think when you’re the SEC-listed CEO and the sole shareholder of a huge company, you can’t claim no involvement in its behavior, on the grounds that you were off doing something else.

    Sure, you can get away with it with the regulatory agencies, but it will tend to stick in the craw when you run for President.

    Same with Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island tax “avoidance” strategies.

  10. July 16, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Ultimately, the whole exercise is futile since any vote supports and enables the top 400 people in this country to finish their looting. Keep right on beating those drums Eric, like it’s going to do any good.

  11. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Et tu George Will? This is a remarkable clip! Key quote, “Mitt Romney is losing in a big way!”

    Then there’s Will Kristol who says Romney should just release his records and stand by capitalism.

    Kristol also says that that Romney is losing.

    But Will and Kristol are both out of touch. Romney’s advisers are right to be worried, because they understand that the majority of working class Americans really aren’t going to grasp the nuances of a candidate who laments the loss of jobs due to outsourcing, but acted appropriately as a businessman in taking advantage of the outsourcing to benefit his shareholders (who were pretty much him at the time). It’s a hard place for a conservative who argues that personal responsibility in conduct ought to be emphasized over government regulation, when he is essentially saying, “I did what was appropriate as a businessman, but the government shouldn’t have let me do it.”

    In this clip, Mary Matlin tries to argue that he should proudly and boldly proclaim that Bain did nothing wrong, whether he was involved or not. I think he’ll probably do that eventually, just as Dukakis finally embraced his liberalism. But he better not wait until September, like Dukakis did. Will is right about one thing, this thing should have been vetter years ago.

  12. Mitch
    July 16, 2012 at 10:10 am

    The other day I put a link up on quick notes to the latest NY Times story on Goldman Sachs. It’s worth mentioning here, too, I guess. GS took a five million dollar fee to giver merger advice the folks who devoted their lives to building up Dragon Systems as the best voice recognition software. For their fee, they got the couple $580 million in stock in a competitor, which became worthless in about six months. The kicker is that GS has looked the competitor over a couple of years prior, to see whether they were interested in investing GS money in it — no, they decided, the company is cooking its books.

    I mean, seriously, when you have companies like this owning the economy and the political system, any faith you have in either has to be based purely on fantasy.

  13. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 10:12 am

    And as soon as I got to TPM this morning, I was greeted by a headline which exemplifies why I think Romney is going to lose this thing. Does anybody really think “the Ketchup Defense” is a winning argument?

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-tax-returns-teresa-heinz-kerry.php?ref=fpa

  14. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Mitch – Democracy offers opportunity only. It doesn’t guarantee results. And 98 percent of the time, the subjects of democracy squander the opportunity. Every once in a while there’s a significant shift, but otherwise progress is agonizingly slow. I came to that realization in my early 20s, so I wasn’t so invested to become disillusioned about it. All progressives can do is put the arguments out there and hope they resonate with enough people at some point.

  15. Mitch
    July 16, 2012 at 10:20 am

    The NYT story seems to be paywalled, so here’s a different link: http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/dragon-systems-creators-sue-goldman-sachs-over-580m-86092

  16. July 16, 2012 at 10:28 am

    After scanning through Eric’s latest montage and succumbing to the irresistible urge to say something I moved on over to read Glenn Greenwald’s latest: CNN on the Iran threat. This comment caught my attention because is correlates, in a
    minor way, to the Humboldt Herald’s wannabe statuesque place in local news and what constitutes news reporting.  “There’s a perennial debate about whether the propagandistic tripe produced by establishment media outlets is shaped more by evil or by stupidity. Personally, I think it’s both: a healthy dose of each is needed. The system design is malicious, while those who serve as its public face are generally vacant. In the case of CNN, one can think of it as the Time-Warner/Wolf-Blitzer dichotomy.” Or, in this case, the Humboldt Herald, one can think of it as the Heraldo/Eric Kirk dichotomy.

    Never ANY thought to a third choice or action to delegitimize the whole process – as if there ever was any legitimacy. Presidents Bush and Obama have both proven and established that reality.

  17. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 10:31 am

    My last post for awhile. Tom Tomorrow chimed in.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1109454/-Republican-ju-jitsu

  18. July 16, 2012 at 10:37 am

    The system design is malicious, while those who serve as its public face are generally vacant. ….

    I agree to some extent with Radley Balko over at The Agitator blog when he wrote some time ago that most news media aren’t so much liberal or conservative (although most news folk do tend to lean strongly liberal in personal beliefs), but are mainly just supporters of the status quo in government.

    They mostly report what their sources in government tell them and then let their sources in government come on TV, or their paper version, and argue it out.

  19. July 16, 2012 at 10:38 am

    Eric, this, comment is pure nonsense. The whole process is rigged and you know it. Or are you really THAT stupid? “Mitch – Democracy offers opportunity only. It doesn’t guarantee results. And 98 percent of the time, the subjects of democracy squander the opportunity. Every once in a while there’s a significant shift, but otherwise progress is agonizingly slow. I came to that realization in my early 20s, so I wasn’t so invested to become disillusioned about it. All progressives can do is put the arguments out there and hope they resonate with enough people at some point.”

    So-called “Progressives” can do a hell of a lot more than “JUST” put their “arguments” out there. “Arguments” for arguments sake based upon some fantasy “hope” are a total waste of time and have absolutely nothing to do with the real issue. That’s what the so-called non-progressives know and why they hang tough to the end. You and your kind of sellout moralizing rote almost guarantee a right-wing takeover when your system finally runs out of answers.

  20. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 11:27 am

    The problem, Joe, is that the vast majority of Americans do not agree with progressives on most of the particulars. Until you’ve convinced at least a good percentage of the people, you can’t win elections. The bottom line is that each election, the vast majority of voters go into the booths and vote for one of the two major party candidates. Maybe they’re misled by advertising, lack of education, or something else. But they make the choice, right or wrong, to vote for one of the parties. You and I may not see much of a difference between the parties, but most do. If Paul Ryan gets his way and 133 billion in food stamps money is eliminated, millions of people, many of them children, will be affected. It might not mean anything to you or me personally, but that alone may account for why 90 percent of black voters supports Democrats, and won’t break off to support Greens. Some people can more easily afford to opt out of “the system,” whatever that is.

  21. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Oops. Thanks to someone who emailed me, I’ve edited the main post to replace Medial Matters with FAIR, the acronym for Fairness and Accuracy in the Media. Both are progressive media watchdog groups, but the studies come from FAIR.

    Media Matters actually has some interesting stuff on topic.

    Gretchen Carlson of Fox News “really, really wants Obama to apologize” to Romney.

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/16/foxs-carlson-obama-is-apologizing-to-foreign-na/187143

    And Rush isn’t so subtle. He just wants you to know that Obama hates his country.

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/16/limbaugh-it-can-now-be-said-without-equivocatio/187150

    And here’s an interesting discussion on how the big Democratic donors are responding to the Bain attacks. Not all of them are happy about it.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/168903/how-do-attacks-bain-go-over-wealthy-democrats

  22. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Here’s the first plausible explanation (alternative to Romney lying) from David Gergen – Bain was “sloppy” with the paperwork.

    Perhaps. But will Romney and Bain admit that and offer mea culpas?

    Doubt it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/opinion/gergen-bain-romney/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

  23. July 16, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Eric, like usual you missed my point. My fault not yours. Sorry. However, “The System” is exactly what you just described in your response to me. This comment, however, is not true. I know it’s how you see it as you accurately define “the system”: “…vast majority of Americans do not agree with progressives on most of the particulars. Until you’ve convinced at least a good percentage of the people, you can’t win elections.” People “vote” who and what “they” believe they are in society. When is anyone ever converted to become “progressive” or anything else? That’s why I said “arguing” over semantics is nonsense and only clouds the real issues. People that vote, get what they want. In that regard Capitalistic Democracy works. Problem is, reality is staring everyone right in the face, this system is broken, corrupt and totally lawless; the US Constitution is essentially worthless and most everyone knows it. All everyone, most everyone including you are trying to do is hang on to a dying dream. There are no more answers or solutions and when that reality is forced upon everyone, we’ll all see what happens and how everyone votes. It is NOT about what people say, Obama or Romney, BUT what they DO and DID. By the way, voting for the 400 people that actually run this country is Medieval or my words, Dark Age mentality. (I’m not talking about Congress either.) A vote for any political party is ultimately ONLY a vote for these 400 owners and that is Oligarchic Fascism.

  24. Just Middle Finger
    July 16, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    “If Paul Ryan gets his way and 133 billion in food stamps money is eliminated, millions of people, many of them children, will be affected. It might not mean anything to you or me personally, but that alone may account for why 90 percent of black voters supports Democrats, and won’t break off to support Greens. Some people can more easily afford to opt out of “the system,” whatever that is.”

    Huh? You saying 90% of black voters are on food stamps and thats why they vote Democratic? I dunno, that sounds a lot like the Romney ‘if you want free stuff, vote for Obama’ tune, with all its racist implications. Loose wording, perhaps?

  25. Eric Kirk
    July 16, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Most of them have friends or family members on food stamps. Their unemployment rate is twice that of whites. Many families in their communities will be hit very hard with those cuts. The “free stuff” argument is one made from the comfort of wealth, and of course it’s not quite “free.” Most of them have been working hard all of their lives, paying into these programs and have the right to expect that the programs will be there when they need them.

  26. Anonymous
    July 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Krugman’s column today in conclusion, “Thus the entirely true charge that Mr. Romney wants to slash historically low tax rates on the rich even further dovetails perfectly with his own record of extraordinary tax avoidance — so extraordinary that he’s evidently afraid to let voters see his tax returns from before 2010. The equally true charge that he’s pushing policies that would benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary working Americans meshes with Bain’s record of earning big profits even when workers suffered — a record so stark that Mr. Romney is attempting to distance himself from part of it by insisting that he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations after 1999, even though the company continued to list him as C.E.O. and sole owner until 2002. And so on.

    The point is that talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters.”

  27. Mitch
    July 16, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    “Never ANY thought to a third choice or action to delegitimize the whole process – as if there ever was any legitimacy. Presidents Bush and Obama have both proven and established that reality.”

    Joe Blow,

    The third choice simply does not help in our system the way it is structured; third parties get nowhere in winner take all systems. They inevitably siphon more people from the party that is politically closer to them than from the party farther from them.

    So that leaves delegitimizing the process, which seems like something near and dear to your heart.

    What do you think that accomplishes? What would you see happening if the system were “delegitimized,” and why do you think the typical American still considers it legitimate anyway?

    How do you think the “delegitimization” can be advanced?

  28. Eric Kirk
    July 17, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Purity is much easier than actually rolling up your sleeves and trying to squeeze some change out of the reality of the situation. I voted for Nader in 2000. The result was the Iraq War. No, I don’t believe that Gore would have invaded anyway. I don’t even believe that McCain would have.

  29. July 17, 2012 at 11:38 am

    Mitch, People like you and Eric have taken this country to the point of no return. The lawless corruption is beyond dispute, the extent of which has simply become the accepted status quo. You asked: “How do you think the “delegitimization” can be advanced?” First, that answer is self-evident and probably disingenuous. Because you just answered your own question: “The third choice simply does not help in our system the way it is structured; third parties get nowhere in winner take all systems. They inevitably siphon more people from the party that is politically closer to them than from the party farther from them.”

    Your problem is you’ve been given choices, but as long as you choose to BELIEVE that brainwashed nonsense you, by your very stated actions, already act to delegitimize the system. In other words, whether you like it or not or how hard you try to absolve yourselves of any responsibility, you stand accountable for what is and will be. By the way, Mitch, ONLY God and my wife knows what is “near and dear to my heart,” so I’d watch the presumptuous judging. Unless you believe you’re some sort of god, that is.

    Eric, (Referencing your 9:23 post) I get better results talking to my cat than trying to reason with an admitted “BELIEVER.” What you ostensibly choose to believe serves only your personal religious aspirations and rarely represents anything to do with “reality” beyond “the believer’s” self-serving ego-driven existence. You continue to justify my reason for posting as you ardently preach to the choir.

  30. Anonymous
    July 17, 2012 at 11:52 am

    What do you expect from a delegitimized electoral system, Joe? Revolution? HA! Not voting or throwing away your vote on a lost cause only serves the political party you like least.

  31. Eric Kirk
    July 17, 2012 at 1:09 pm
  32. High Finance
    July 18, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Romney should promise to release more of his tax returns as soon as Obama releases his college transcripts.

  33. Anonymous
    July 18, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Since the grades of our sitting president who was the president of the Harvard Law Review and who graduated from Harvard Law obviously wasn’t an issue to the majority who put him in office and, since it has been the tradition for presidential candidates to release fheir tax records but not their grades (or their birth certificates) it is ridiculous to equate the two. Since McCain was provided 23 years of Romney’s tax records and decided to go with Palin (and still claims she was the better choice) Romney probably realizes that most Americans would hold his vulture capitalism, secret offshore accts, and lies about when or if he really left Bain against him. Indeed, there are many elite Republicans calling for him to release them, not HiFi of course. As the birthers said so often (and so dishonestly since Obama released his certified BC before he was elected) he must be hiding something that would disqualify him for office – if only in the minds of American voters.

  34. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 10:01 am

    9:58 was me.

  35. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Good find Eric. Parry is a crown jewel of investigative journalism.

  36. High Finance
    July 18, 2012 at 10:27 am

    PJ, it is hypocritical to demand one but not the other. Much slander was made by the left because of the second Pres Bush’s college grades even though they were above average. Little was said about John Kerry’s gpa even though his was lower than Bush’s.

    Now there is much speculation about how bad Obama’s grades were because of his outright refusal to release them. If he has nothing to hide, why not just do it & end the issue ?

    As far as Romney’s tax returns, it is nothing buy voyeurism. That and a another chance for the left to slam Romney for being rich as if that is a bad thing. Romney has released his 2010 tax returns and has said he will release his 2011 when they are finished. Two years of returns has been the tradition until a couple of presidential candidates released more in the recent past.

    Tit for tat PJ, tit for tat.

  37. Mitch
    July 18, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Joe Blow writes:
    By the way, Mitch, ONLY God and my wife knows what is “near and dear to my heart,” so I’d watch the presumptuous judging.

    and Joe Blow writes:

    Mitch, People like you and Eric have taken this country to the point of no return.

    The Babble seyuhz:
    http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm

  38. Smart 5th Grader
    July 18, 2012 at 11:00 am

    Hi Fi said “Tit for tat PJ, tit for tat.”
    That is SO 4th grade!

  39. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 11:05 am

    HiFi should stop getting his information from Romney (and Fox) on presidents releasing tax returns:

    “John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 all released many years of tax returns when they ran for president against the incumbent, either at the time or because they had routinely released tax returns while in public office. (There was no incumbent in 2000.) Dole, in fact, released tax returns for a whopping 30 years.

    Of course, Romney’s father, George Romney, is famous for having released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968, saying “one year could be a fluke.” As BuzzFeed showed, he paid an effective tax rate of 50 percent — those were days before the Reagan tax cuts. ”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-misleading-history-of-tax-returns-issued-by-presidential-contenders/2012/07/16/gJQAChunpW_blog.html

  40. Mitch
    July 18, 2012 at 11:06 am

    Welcome back Jane.

  41. Herodotus
    July 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Where to begin? Romney says the greatest influence in his life, the one he would most like to emulate, is his father, George Romney. George ran for president in 1968 and released 13 years of his tax returns, because he believed in transparency, in candidates having nothing to hide, and thereby started the tradition of presidential candidates releasing tax returns. All candidates since have done the same, differering in the number of years from the low of two by John McCain.

    I suggest you read some history sometime BEFORE you spew your misinformation. Or is it intentional?

    Romney says he doesn’t want opposition picking his tax returns apart, going thru them with a fine tooth comb, looking for any thing that might be amiss. But that is actually the point of doing it, so people can go thru them and then we all can know something about the candidate who wants to become our president.

  42. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Thanks Mitch. I’ve been in and out occasionally as anonymous because I’ve been too busy to keep up a debate, but I’m back and fully primed so buckle up bitches! :-D

  43. July 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Talk about a need for a reality check. This is a classic brainwashed propaganda nonsense.

    “What do you expect from a delegitimized electoral system, Joe? Revolution? HA! Not voting or throwing away your vote on a lost cause only serves the political party you like least.”

    Which goes right to the heart of Mitch’s rather ambiguous point:
    “Joe Blow writes:
    By the way, Mitch, ONLY God and my wife knows what is “near and dear to my heart,” so I’d watch the presumptuous judging.
    and Joe Blow writes: Mitch, People like you and Eric have taken this country to the point of no return.”

    Mitch, you and Eric’s record supporting the “delegitimized electoral system” is a matter of record, therefore fact and NOT any judgment by me. What you vote for is proven to be the 400 most wealthy people in this country who own all of the so-called elected people you vote for. As owners they dictate and control what happens in this country and what it does in the world, or I should say, to the world. This country is at a point of no return as a consequence of the complete and inherent corruption that YOU two support and enable with everything you say and do. When you can practice what you preach then you can try talking to me about who are the real hypocrites.

  44. Eric Kirk
    July 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Joe, you know, if you don’t like discussions about the elections, then don’t participate in them. There’s nothing that forces you to hit the links and read them.

  45. Mitch
    July 18, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    For starters, Joe, you quoted “Anonymous 11:52,” not me.

    As for the rest, you seem to have the idea that not voting is better than voting. You may be right, but your insistence that the responsibility for the way things are today belongs only to those who vote is, to be blunt, ridiculous.

    Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change anything.

    It’s really a shame that you never respond to questions with any thought out approach — only with hurled insults. I’ll stop trying.

  46. July 18, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    Whatever gave you that idea, Eric? Is this your kind of “Love it or leave it” mentality showing your true colors? If you want to talk about or discuss “elections” fine. Just be honest. Why does someone have to “like” something to be ALLOWED to participate? Sounds to me like your more right-wing or should I say bigoted in your thinking then you’d like people to know.

  47. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    People who don’t vote are just as much to blame for our problems as those who do since their vote may have made the difference. I don’t understand why you think not voting will change anything, Joe.

  48. July 18, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Mitch magnanimously says in total ignorance: ” You may be right, but your insistence that the responsibility for the way things are today belongs only to those who vote is, to be blunt, ridiculous.” — Absolutely unbelievable!

    That statement defines you as totally clueless as to what a Democracy is. It’s easy enough to throw around bonehead accusations, but that statement says it all. Thank you. You justify everything I’ve said. Is there any wonder why the elected, but owned government treats the common voting man and woman with such disrespect and disdain. I can hardly write this down I’m laughing so damned hard. Pathetic, is all I can say.

  49. July 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    First, Jane, I’m not telling anyone to vote or NOT vote. Because the ULTIMATE responsibility and accountability for government, law and enforcement of law falls to the voter, you either vote to legitimize the government or you do not vote to delegitimise the government. Whether this government is Constitutionally legitimate is a matter well defined by, in this instance, by President Barack Obama and current congress and Supreme Court. Ultimately, this issue is moot as this country is broke – the value of the dollar is essentially worthless. In other words, the resolution to this matter is being taken out of the hands of the voter – so dream on.

  50. Anonymous
    July 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    Joe Blow sez “the value of the dollar is essentially worthless”

    I’ll be happy to take those worthless pieces of paper off your hands. As much as you want to get rid of. And I won’t even charge you for hauling them off and disposing of them.

  51. Plain Jane
    July 18, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    Joe should auction those “worthless” dollars off to the highest bidder. I’ll give him 5 cents worth of gold for each one.

  52. elvisatemydonuts
    July 18, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    “As before, Obama is pushing a bill which will preserve the cuts for 99 percent of the public, and calling for a separate vote on the other two percent.”

    Uh, I don’t mean to question your math skills, but that comes to 101% which is impossible. Also, your premise is wrong. Since before Obama took office and straight through today, nearly half (48%) of Americans pay NO federal income taxes at all. Not one penny. To claim Obama’s bill will “preserve the cuts for 99 percent of the public” when only 52% of the public ever pay federal income taxes is painfully clueless on your part. I understand that ignorance is the universal characteristic of all Obama supporters but that fact is pretty basic and widely known (even among progressives).

    ” . . . she would not even refer to Obama’s plan as a tax cut plan. She talked about Republicans trying to sell their tax cut plan and Obama trying to sell his “economic message.””

    Yes, exactly. That’s because Obama’s “plan” involves extending the (Republican) “Bush Tax Cuts”, not some brand new middle-class tax cuts that are just now being proposed by president Obama.

    “That Republicans in voting to kill Obama’s plan are actually essentially voting for a tax increase for the middle class . . . ”

    Wait a minute! The selective honesty by leftists like you is hilarious. Now that it serves your narrative, you FINALLY admit there will be “a tax increase for the middle class” if the Bush tax cuts expire. But you can’t have it both ways. I remember not long ago, every Democratic politician in front of a TV camera and the entire chorus of the left news media ALL drilled into us, over and over (and over), the lie that the Bush tax cuts were ONLY “tax cuts for the rich” and that the middle class were getting passed over. “Bush’s tax cuts for the rich” was one of the most widely used phrases of the last decade and was a huge lie. It’s nice to see folks from the left finally have to admit that fact.

  53. High Finance
    July 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    You are using too much logic & too many facts there Elvis.

    You have driven all the screaming libs away.

  54. Just Middle Finance
    July 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm

    Hi Fi. Be nice to Elvis. He’s on our side.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s