Huffington post, obviously not the most disinterested source, suggests that Romney's tax returns may indicate that he took an active role in Bain after the date he claims he had not role. As evidence, they cite his 2010 tax return, where he claims he had an active role in Bain, 10 years after the fact. Could this be what he is concerned about?The Link This seems to back them up:
I'm not going to bash the H Post as the source. But it occurs to me these guys are preaching to the choir. In other words, the vast majority of people who read this article and find it interesting and juicy and compelling are highly disinclined to vote for Romney to begin with. And because it is written, edited, and published by people also 100% in the tank for Obama I am not going to give it any more thought than the time it took to type this response.
He has done nothing illegal, is he still invested in Bain, shares etc. quite possibly, is that wrong? Has he ever said that he is completely disinvested in Bain? I assume like most people that run for President or major political office he has what is called a "Blind" Trust which means he does not know what he is invested in or where his money is at any particular time. Keep reaching, the more you try to attack this guy personally the bigger fool you look.
The tax return will not tell you whether he was actively involved in Bain operations. Its another fishing expedition to try and keep the issue alive and distract the easily distracted.
All I know is his tax % is lower than mine. I realize he is working within the tax laws and probably doing nothing illegal. But that is the problem. Same goes for small business. I have friends who own small businesses and they pay huge% of taxes and get audited at a high rate.
Pharm do you know the difference between Income Taxes from Wages and Capital Gains Tax? There is a huge difference there and you have the ability to take advantage of the Capital Gains Tax all you want. It not some secret that the Rich know about, if you don't know about it then shame on you.
I'm still of the opinion that until it becomes part of an official proceeding (tax evasion charges, etc.), the contents of a candidate's tax returns are not the public's business. I believed that for Bill White when Rick Perry made a big deal of this stupid issue, and I believe it for Mitt Romney. If he was doing something illegal with Bain, then let the Justice Department prosecute him, and the tax returns will become an exhibit in the case and a matter of public record. However, until that happens, I have no problem with him wanting to keep them private. I would do the same.
Romney should offer to release more, just as soon a Obama explains how he came by a social security number beginning with 042 which is reserved for citizens of Connecticut.
I did like the founding fathers did when researching the term "natural born," I googled it. I don't think anyone knows the whole number on the one he uses, there are several numbers assigned to different but similar names for Barack and Michelle.
WhitmanSampler, I'm going to ask you this just like I did on another post. "ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT WE SHOULD WORRY MORE ABOUT WHAT ROMNEY DID WITH HIS OWN MONEY MORE THAN WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE WITH MINE?????
For everyone's information, when he was born he was not given a SS number. It wasn't until well after 1969 where you got a SS at birth. Wherever you requested one is how you got the number you received. The first three digits referred to an area of the country at one point. I don't think that is true anymore. I was born in Chicago and received my SS number in Arizona and it starts with the same three numbers as most people from Arizona.
From the Social Security Website: The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office.
i don't know who thought a SSN was based on where someone was born. It is quite simply based on where you are when you apply, or more accurately from where you mail your application and expect to receive your card maled back to you. That is why the question of how BO ended up with a SSN that is mailed to people who apply from Conn seems a legit question to ask without getting bashed for being a Birther America is better then Birtherism.
Deez the first time i became aware of a SSN issue with Bo was when his selective service card was released and the SSN was on it, the one that begins 042 It may have been that Hillary supporter who made that public. It is disingenous of you to ask if the SSN ./Birth certificates of other candidates have been scrutinized. John McCain had his eligibility documented by the Dem controlled Senate, citing the Naturalization Act of 1790. funny the Dem Senate didn't do the ame for BO
Wow, I35, I think we should worry about both, actually. I just thought it was an interesting issue and thought perhaps a tax guru could fact check the argument. I didn't expect that the responses would completely ignore the point of the piece, and launch into explanations about why we should care nothing about Romney's finaances. Did Romney take deductions for Bain Capital income that required him to be an "active participant" as defined by the tax code, as defined in the OP, or not? If he did, that puts his claims that he had no involvement with Bain after 1999, or 2000, depending upon which version he is now hewing to, in question. I have not seen the 2010 return HuffPo refers to,so I don't know if he affirmatively claimed "active participation" (in which case he is a ******* liar) or if HuffPo is inferring such a claim from a deduction, to which he is entitled on other grounds (even as a passive participant, in which case HuffPo are acting as partisan hacks). Icertainly don't know the answer. Regardless, he claims passive status for gains, and pays at at 15% rate, and active status for losses, and takes a 35% deduction? It might well be that the laws are written that way, but by whom? Voters can rationally decide that persons who stand to benefit (to the tune of a 20% shift on $547,000 in deductions) are more likely to keep these sorts of goodies in the tax code. Or they might not. It is, however, something the voters should decide. Not the candidate. Again, I35, I think disclosure of tax records more in tune with historical precedent is appropriate; this issue is one more reason. I also agree wit you that we should look carefully at how our money is being spent, whether, as you put it, by Obama, or by the people that put goodies into the tax code that unfairly benefit a very few.
Derz if you want consistency then don't you think it odd, as i point out in the next sentence of the post that the Dem senate felt the need to establish mcCain's eligibility using the Naturalzation Act of 1790 but didn't feel any need to try to establish BO's? anyone who tries to pretend the facts of BO's birth are different than any other POTUS we hvae ever had is playing games with themselves
