• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Liars, Damned Liars, and Harry Reid

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
August 7, 2012
Liars, Damned Liars, and Harry Reid
By Dov Fischer

Harry Reid wants to see more of Mitt Romney's past income-tax filings. Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants to see 23 years of his taxes. This, from the die-hard supporters of a candidate who will not release his college transcripts or so much more.

I want to know how Barack Obama got into Columbia University for undergraduate school. I want to see his application. Did he seek extra consideration, as did Elizabeth Warren in applying for her academic opportunities, by claiming to be a member of a demographic group favored by affirmative action? I imagine that he did not falsely claim special treatment on a theory of being foreign-born, but I would like to know for sure. It is immaterial where he was born -- I want to know whether he claimed on his applications, as his book publisher later would write about him, that he had overcome the disadvantages of being foreign-born. What did he write to the dean of admissions of Columbia University about his childhood, his education, his background? Every college-transfer application to Columbia requires that the student write a narrative, tell his story, explain why he deserves a crack at the Ivy League after a brief sojourn at a lesser institution.

I want to know who funded his college education. Columbia costs an arm and a leg. Did Barack Obama have benefactors, admirers of his youthful promise, paying his way? Did he take loans? If so, how did he qualify? Or did he win exceptional scholarship and grant-funding? If he received assistance -- and good for him if he did -- what was the narrative that he presented to qualify? Did he speak of the challenges of being reared in Hawaii, a black youngster reared by a white grandmother who stood in as surrogate for his mom? Did he speak of having overcome educational disadvantages overseas? Did he boost his appeal for assistance by claiming to be foreign-born? Like Harry Reid and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I also want to know more about the leader of the free world.

During his time at Columbia, what were his grades? Everyone is entitled to a bad grade or two or three. You run into a tough professor or one who, though brilliant, is garbled and incoherent. Or someone whose code you simply cannot crack. However, a student who glides from Columbia University into Harvard Law School typically will have quite impressive a string of fabulous grades. I want to know what his grades were at Columbia. We all gained the opportunity to learn Al Gore's grades at Harvard, as well as John Kerry's and George W. Bush's grades at Yale. We learned that Bush, a "C" student with a 77 average, had scored one point higher than Kerry, who graduated with a 76 GPA. Bush got a "D" in astronomy, while Kerry scored four "D" grades as a freshman. That year alone, Kerry scored 68 in each of two history courses and a 69 in political science. Indeed, the media could compare them. I want to know Barack Obama's grades at my alma mater. It seems that a 78 average is all it would take to register Barack Obama as a genius on the "American Presidency Academic Scale." Why is a brilliant thinker, whose ostensible brilliance raised him to be president of Harvard Law Review even though he never published any scholarship on his own, holding back?

Wasserman Schultz wants to see Romney's tax returns from 23 years ago? I want to see Barack Obama's application to Harvard Law School. Did he simply attach a fabulous, superlative transcript of straight As earned at Columbia with letters of recommendation from the university's most prominent faculty members, along with a sparkling grade on the uniform Law School Admissions Test? If so, good for him. He should be proud to share it with the public. I want to see it.

What did he tell Harvard in the all-important personal essay that applicants must submit with their packages? Was it an essay about how he had spent his summer? Was it about the disadvantages he had to overcome in his life? There is no reason for a person reared by his grandmother to be ashamed to share that document with the public.

Indeed, even for the staunchest conservatives, that account was one of the most compelling aspects of Bill Clinton's life narrative: a youngster reared by his grandmother in Arkansas while his divorced mom struggled to earn a nursing degree in Louisiana. What was Barack Obama's narrative? Did he describe awkwardness and perhaps virulent racism encountered as a young black man in Hawaii? That story can be compelling, even now, offering all of us what he likes to call a "teachable moment."

Did he describe attending school in Indonesia or somewhere else? What was his story? By what formula did his application win him acceptance to Harvard Law, and how did he pay for those three years of incredibly challenging tuition? With grants and scholarships? A rich uncle about whom we have not heard? How did he get there? How did he qualify for financial assistance? What makes one set of financial disclosures more relevant than another? I want to know.

American laws easily can be drafted to require presidential candidates to release five years of tax returns, ten years, even 23 years. Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader, and he can move the machinery to bring such a bill for a vote. The day that law is passed, we all will demand that all candidates from all parties release all mandated tax returns. However, that day is not this day. Mitt Romney has complied with the law. If the Democrats want to argue that "tradition" implies that presidential candidates should release more tax returns, then tradition also teaches that presidential candidates should release school transcripts. For example, at Harvard, Al Gore earned a "D" in Natural Sciences 6 ("Man's Place in Nature") and a C+ in Natural Sciences 118. On his College Board Achievement Tests he earned 488 out of 800 in physics and 519 out of 800 in chemistry. It is helpful and even important for Americans to know the hard-science skills of a man who came before us as inventor of the internet and before our Republic as the Philosopher-King of Global Warming.

The double standard proffered by Reid and by Wasserman Schultz is despicable, even as it is frustrating that Romney's surrogates have been hesitant to demand more self-revelation from Obama.

Finally, another word about law. Most Americans do not realize that, as a matter of law, a politician knowingly may lie and defame anyone as long as he is speaking in a legislative session within the legislative chambers of government. Whether a City Council representative legislating at a formal zoning hearing, a state legislator in the Assembly chambers, or a United States senator debating on the Senate floor, she may say anything she pleases and may knowingly lie and defame with complete immunity.

Deriving from legal sources like the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 6, this "safe harbor" to slander and defame shamelessly is known as the "legislative privilege." At its finest, the legislative privilege exists to assure unfettered debate, permitting robust criticism of government without fear of being sued for tortious defamation. However, Harry Reid does not embody its finest. Note that Harry Reid, when speaking outside the safety of the legislative chamber, speaks of having heard rumors about Mitt Romney but never states outright that Mitt Romney cheated on taxes except when Reid is on the Senate floor, artificially protected from being sued as a "dirty liar." Thus, he not only is a "dirty liar," but he is also a coward. If the lines at Chick-fil-A are too long, you can always find at least that one chicken in the United States Senate.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I guess Mitt needs to blame it on his Daddy George for the precedence and setting the bar too high for what he can meet...


Why won't Romney release more tax returns?

By Edward D. Kleinbard and Peter C. Canellos, Special to CNN
updated 12:50 PM EDT, Wed July 18, 2012

Editor's note: Edward D. Kleinbard is a professor at Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California. He is the former chief of staff of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. Peter C. Canellos, a lawyer, is former chair of the New York State Bar Association Tax Section.

(CNN) -- By announcing that he will release no further tax returns beyond his 2010 and 2011 returns, Mitt Romney appears to have exempted himself from the proud bipartisan tradition of presidential nominees displaying genuine financial candor with the electorate.

What is more, his disclosure to date is in the wrong direction: It is the release of Romney's past returns, not his current ones, that matters.

Since George Romney inaugurated the practice more than 40 years ago by releasing 12 years of tax returns in his bid for the Republican Party nomination, presidential nominees have been transparent with voters about their personal finances. For this reason, we have not suffered a significant tax scandal involving a nominee or sitting president since President Richard Nixon's abuse of the tax code.

Either Romney has an unresolved father figure issue, or he has some special reason not to follow a tradition established by his father.



Given Romney's financial sophistication, it has been assumed by some that there cannot be any tax skeletons in his closet. His reluctance to disclose past returns, however, undermines that assumption. We are left with the difficult task of plausibly reconstructing his financial record based on the one full return that he has released. The result is troubling.

Mitt Romney is extraordinarily wealthy, but that is not a justification for nondisclosure. He has made no secret of his wealth, and required campaign disclosures already hint at its magnitude. While Romney may have dissembled about when he actually left Bain Capital, he has been disassociated with the firm long enough that he cannot argue that his tax returns will reveal proprietary secrets.

Nor is this just an exercise in financial titillation or gossip. Disclosure goes to the heart of the truthfulness with which a nominee engages the American people, and it assures us that he in fact has comported himself before the election with the high moral character we associate with a future president.

Romney's 2010 tax return, when combined with his FEC disclosure, reveals red flags that raise serious tax compliance questions with respect to his possible tax minimization strategies in earlier years. The release in October of his 2011 return will at best act as a distraction from these questions.

So, what are the issues?

The first is Romney's Swiss bank account. Most presidential candidates don't think it appropriate to bet that the U.S. dollar will lose value by speculating in Swiss Francs, which is basically the rationale offered by the trustee of Romney's "blind" trust for opening this account. What's more, if you really want just to speculate on foreign currencies, you don't need a Swiss bank account to do so.

The Swiss bank account raises tax compliance questions, too.

The account seems to have been closed early in 2010, but was the income in fact reported on earlier tax returns? Did the Romneys timely file the required disclosure forms to the Treasury Department (so-called FBAR reports)?

The IRS announced in 2009 a partial tax amnesty for unreported foreign bank accounts, in light of the Justice Department's criminal investigations involving several Swiss banks. To date, some 34,500 Americans have taken advantage of such amnesty programs. Did the Romneys avail themselves of any of these amnesty programs? One hopes that such a suggestion is preposterous, but that is what disclosure is for -- to replace speculation with truth-telling to the American people.

Second, Romney's $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million?

One possibility is that a truly mighty oak sprang up virtually overnight from relatively tiny annual acorns because of the unprecedented prescience of every one of Romney's investment choices.

Another, which on its face is quite plausible, is that Romney stuffed far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. He presumably would have done so by relying on a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service partner's receipt of such interests, but that rule emphatically does not apply to an interest when sold to a retirement plan, which is supposed to be measured by its true fair market value.

Third, the vast amounts in Romney's family trusts raise a parallel question: Did Romney report and pay gift tax on the funding of these trusts or did he claim similarly unreasonable valuations, which likewise would have exposed him to serious penalties if all the facts were known?

Fourth, the complexity of Romney's one publicly released tax return, with all its foreign accounts, trusts, corporations and partnerships, leaves even experts (including us) scratching their heads. Disclosure of multiple years' tax returns is part of the answer here, but in this case it isn't sufficient. Romney's financial affairs are so arcane, so opaque and so tied up in his continuing income from Bain Capital that more is needed, including an explanation of the $100 million IRA.

Finally, there's the puzzle of the Romneys' extraordinarily low effective tax rate.

For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money.

The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year.


The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company. These are all factors that go to the heart of his character and values.

For a nominee to America's highest office, a clear and transparent reporting of his finances should be nothing more than routine.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I want to know how Barack Obama got into Columbia University for undergraduate school. I want to see his application. Did he seek extra consideration, as did Elizabeth Warren in applying for her academic opportunities, by claiming to be a member of a demographic group favored by affirmative action? I imagine that he did not falsely claim special treatment on a theory of being foreign-born, but I would like to know for sure. It is immaterial where he was born -- I want to know whether he claimed on his applications, as his book publisher later would write about him, that he had overcome the disadvantages of being foreign-born. What did he write to the dean of admissions of Columbia University about his childhood, his education, his background? Every college-transfer application to Columbia requires that the student write a narrative, tell his story, explain why he deserves a crack at the Ivy League after a brief sojourn at a lesser institution.
 

Steve

Well-known member
The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation

not a bunch of sealed records...
 

gearhead

Well-known member
Steve said:
The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation

not a bunch of sealed records...

So Oldtimer your saying that the president of the US needs to be thoroughly vetted. Well obama hasn't been vetted one iota, and has sealed all possible records at a tremendous expense, plus he is a total failure as president. The only thing he passed in two years having control in house and senate was obamacare and its 27 new taxes on middle class families. Do we really need another 144 regulations on private business that oblamo wants to use to completely stop job creation? Community organization doesn't qualify someone for presidency.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
gearhead said:
Steve said:
The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation

not a bunch of sealed records...

So Oldtimer your saying that the president of the US needs to be thoroughly vetted. Well obama hasn't been vetted one iota, and has sealed all possible records at a tremendous expense, plus he is a total failure as president. The only thing he passed in two years having control in house and senate was obamacare and its 27 new taxes on middle class families. Do we really need another 144 regulations on private business that oblamo wants to use to completely stop job creation? Community organization doesn't qualify someone for presidency.

So are you saying that since GW Bush and the Republican Congress led the country into a position where any choice was better than what they put forward--- and so the country chose what you think was an unvetted President-- that we should now not vett any Presidential candidate :???:
Or just not vett rich Republican candidates possible embarassing finances :???:

And I have a hard time believing that Obama was not vetted... If there had been anything more that could have been found or released do you think that GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John McCain, the Republican Committee- having a sitting Repub President in office with all the tools of government at their disposal wouldn't have found it and leaked it if they thought it could have prevented Obama from being elected.. :???:

But just like the birth certificate issue - actually the opposite was done- both John McCain and Dick Cheney said that Obama was qualified as a US citizen- and Cheney certified him after a unanimous vote of Congress also backed Obama....
And now even Romneys campaign manager as Secretary of State for Arizona has certified Obama meets the qualifications to be President of the US...
No- the birther issue is all just a smokescreen put up by a few nutcases that will never accept either Obama or anyone of off color or belief as President...

But- the issue now is the vetting of the current Repub proposed candidate- Mitt Romney...

What do you believe he is hiding?

Since George Romney inaugurated the practice more than 40 years ago by releasing 12 years of tax returns in his bid for the Republican Party nomination, presidential nominees have been transparent with voters about their personal finances. For this reason, we have not suffered a significant tax scandal involving a nominee or sitting president since President Richard Nixon's abuse of the tax code.

What do you think is so important not to disclose to the voting public that he would go against the precedent his father thought important enough to start- and that has been followed since for 40 years :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark


As the controversy over Mitt Romney's tax returns continues, the one person other than Romney himself who could settle this has been completely silent. That would be Sen. John McCain, who inspected 23 years of Romney's tax returns in 2008 when he was considering Romney as a possible running mate. All he would have to do is hold a press conference and say: "Harry Reid is wrong. I personally saw Romney's tax returns going back over two decades and he paid federal income tax every year." But McCain has said nothing at all at a moment he could help Romney and hurt Reid. Why? It seems very strange. Maybe Reid is right and McCain knows this.

May it be that reviewing these 23 years of tax returns is the reason that McCain chose someone as weak as Palin over Romney as a VP candidate...

Many still say his VP choice that ran away moderates, independents, and especially women is the reason he was not elected.... :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
If the IRS has not charged Romney with anything like "Not filing" or "Signing a false return". That good enough for me. I wouldn't show them either just to pizz them off.

Plus, I might have taken it further. I would throw in a "Show Your College Records" to Buckwheat before I show them just hear the Libs howl & whine............... :roll:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The Case of the Senator Who Did Not Bark


As the controversy over Mitt Romney's tax returns continues, the one person other than Romney himself who could settle this has been completely silent. That would be Sen. John McCain, who inspected 23 years of Romney's tax returns in 2008 when he was considering Romney as a possible running mate. All he would have to do is hold a press conference and say: "Harry Reid is wrong. I personally saw Romney's tax returns going back over two decades and he paid federal income tax every year." But McCain has said nothing at all at a moment he could help Romney and hurt Reid. Why? It seems very strange. Maybe Reid is right and McCain knows this.

May it be that reviewing these 23 years of tax returns is the reason that McCain chose someone as weak as Palin over Romney as a VP candidate...

Many still say his VP choice that ran away moderates, independents, and especially women is the reason he was not elected.... :???:

I disagree. Obama is like the head of a cult and in 2008 he was wooing
people with what they wanted to hear, much like a pied piper. That's why
McCain didn't make it. Too many drank Obama's kool aid. :D
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
ABC News’ David Wright Sen. Barack Obama called on his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton to release her recent income tax returns - a move the Clintons have long resisted.


"I’ve released my tax returns," Obama said today on his campaign plane, noting that Presidential candidates have a duty to be transparent and accountable.

He said, "The American people deserve to know where you get your income from."


Wolfson added: "When will Senator Obama release the complete details of his relationship with Tony Rezko?"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Its being reported on some of the blogs today that the reason Romney will not/can not release any older tax returns is because in 2009 he took advantage of the "amnesty" on reporting overseas investment income- and reported huge amounts of previously undisclosed income that he had paid no US tax on...

While with the "amnesty" this would be totally legal- and it is being reported he paid large amounts of taxes on the previously undisclosed funds-- the fact that he had foreign investments/accounts/earnings which he wasn't reporting would have been a crime without the "amnesty" period.....

And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes :???:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Its being reported on some of the blogs today that the reason Romney will not/can not release any older tax returns is because in 2009 he took advantage of the "amnesty" on reporting overseas investment income- and reported huge amounts of previously undisclosed income that he had paid no US tax on...

While with the "amnesty" this would be totally legal- and it is being reported he paid large amounts of taxes on the previously undisclosed funds-- the fact that he had foreign investments/accounts/earnings which he wasn't reporting would have been a crime without the "amnesty" period.....

And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes :???:

When will you ever hold Obama accountable to the standards you set for everyone that is a Republican?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Its being reported on some of the blogs today that the reason Romney will not/can not release any older tax returns is because in 2009 he took advantage of the "amnesty" on reporting overseas investment income- and reported huge amounts of previously undisclosed income that he had paid no US tax on...

While with the "amnesty" this would be totally legal- and it is being reported he paid large amounts of taxes on the previously undisclosed funds-- the fact that he had foreign investments/accounts/earnings which he wasn't reporting would have been a crime without the "amnesty" period.....

And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes :???:


hey oldtimer?

put forward by the IRS since Barack Obama took office. In 2009, US authorities said that roughly 15,000 individuals from nearly 70 countries around the world agreed to the terms of the original programme, which involved a lower 20 per cent penalty.

Mr Shulman said that following the 2009 amnesty, some 3,000 individuals had come to the IRS and expressed interest in disclosing their offshore assets
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Its being reported on some of the blogs today that the reason Romney will not/can not release any older tax returns is because in 2009 he took advantage of the "amnesty" on reporting overseas investment income- and reported huge amounts of previously undisclosed income that he had paid no US tax on...

While with the "amnesty" this would be totally legal- and it is being reported he paid large amounts of taxes on the previously undisclosed funds-- the fact that he had foreign investments/accounts/earnings which he wasn't reporting would have been a crime without the "amnesty" period.....

And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes :???:


hey oldtimer?

put forward by the IRS since Barack Obama took office. In 2009, US authorities said that roughly 15,000 individuals from nearly 70 countries around the world agreed to the terms of the original programme, which involved a lower 20 per cent penalty.

Mr Shulman said that following the 2009 amnesty, some 3,000 individuals had come to the IRS and expressed interest in disclosing their offshore assets
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah I agree Lonecowboy-- while since so many foreign governments were refusing to cooperate on prosecutions, I agreed with the one time amnesty for all these rich tax evaders-- BUT wouldn't it be ironically comical if Repub Mitt Romney had to thank his butt to Dem Barack Obama that he isn't still a felon and subject to prosecution and prison :???: :p :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes

I guess you missed the tread where I posted Obama's foreign income declaration..

Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill.

Nonetheless, the Obamas reported foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried

Who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of US taxes? especially while whining about others who he alleges did it..

darn facts.... :? :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes

I guess you missed the tread where I posted Obama's foreign income declaration..

Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill.

Nonetheless, the Obamas reported foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried

Who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of US taxes? especially while whining about others who he alleges did it..

darn facts.... :? :lol:

But they were reported.... The allegations coming out against Romney is that his earnings were NOT reported- nor were the required US taxes paid-- until AFTER he was offered AMNESTY by the Obama IRS program.. And prior to the amnesty he was committing a Federal Felony Crime.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes

I guess you missed the tread where I posted Obama's foreign income declaration..

Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill.

Nonetheless, the Obamas reported foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried

Who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of US taxes? especially while whining about others who he alleges did it..

darn facts.... :? :lol:

But they were reported.... The allegations coming out against Romney is that his earnings were NOT reported- nor were the required US taxes paid-- until AFTER he was offered AMNESTY by the Obama IRS program.. And prior to the amnesty he was committing a Federal Felony Crime.....


So these allegations have not been proven yet? You seem to like spreading rumors, don't you?
 

Steve

Well-known member
rumor has it said:
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes

I guess you missed the tread where I posted Obama's foreign income declaration..

Over 30% of President Obama’s 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas’ gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas’ gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas’ income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill.

Nonetheless, the Obamas reported foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried

Who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of US taxes? especially while whining about others who he alleges did it..

darn facts.... :? :lol:

But they were reported.... The rumors coming out against Romney is that his earnings were NOT reported- nor were the required US taxes paid-- until AFTER he was offered AMNESTY by the Obama IRS program.. And prior to the amnesty it was rumored that he was committing a Federal Felony Crime.....

this rumor has been effectively dis-proven by a respectable honest Senator,

Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate who received 23 years of Mr. Romney’s returns as part of the vice-presidential vetting process in 2008, has volunteered that “I can personally vouch for the fact that there was nothing in his tax returns that would in any way be disqualifying for him to be a candidate.”

had Romney been a felon as the rumor alleges, it would have disqualified him from such a key position on any political ticket..

now lets get back to your comment..

Oldtimer said:
And who would want a President so snidely that he invests his funds in foreign countries to avoid paying their fair/legal share of taxes

where does it say reported? as a qualifier.. I just posted your words..

and it is clear you could only honestly and factually be describing Obama

Obama clearly avoided $87.429 in US taxes.. what could be more snidely then to use rumors to attack your opponent while carrying on in the same manner that you are criticizing ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Three polls show Obama widening lead over Romney


By Bill Turque, Updated: Friday, August 10, 1:15 PM The Washington Post


A bumpy overseas trip and a month of pummeling by Democratic ads depicting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat and possible tax evader appear to have taken a toll.


Three polls released in the last 24 hours show President Obama widening his lead over the former Massachusetts governor to as much as nine points. The surveys of registered voters, all conducted sometime between Aug. 2 and 8, also have Romney’s unfavorable ratings headed north. Two of the polls show his support among independents slipping.




A Fox News poll found the largest deficit, with Romney trailing by nine points (49 percent to 40 percent) That’s the widest gap Fox has reported all year. Its July survey had Obama up by four points (45 percent to 41 percent). Fox found that Obama’s increasing advantage comes mainly on the strength of a big bump from independents, who now support the president by 11 points, up from four points in July.

Twenty-six percent of voters described themselves “extremely” or “very” comfortable with the prospect of a Romney presidency, while 71 percent said they were either “somewhat” or “not at all” comfortable. Forty-one percent were extremely or very comfortable with a second Obama term, while 59 percent fell into the somewhat or not-at -all categories.

A new CNN/ORC International survey placed the race at seven points (52 percent to 45 percent), up from 49 percent to 46 percent in July. Among independents, Obama’s lead is at nine points. Fifty-two percent of independents view Romney unfavorably, up from 40 percent in May. Sixty-four percent of all voters think he favors the rich over the middle class.

Voters also appear to be losing confidence in Romney’s ability to fix the economy, according to the CNN poll. Forty-five percent said they thought it would improve under Romney, down from 50 percent in May.

Romney’s overseas trip late last month was marked by misadventures. British leaders were miffed when he questioned their preparedness for the Summer Olympics. In Israel, he infuriated Palestinians by saying “culture makes all the difference” when looking at their lack of economic growth relative to the Israelis.

At home, the Obama campaign hammered on Romney’s business career at Bain Capital, with one ad showing images of closed factories and news stories about his foreign investments, accompanied by his off-key rendition of “America the Beautiful.” Another spot, addressing Romney’s refusal to release additional years of income tax returns, asks, “What is Mitt Romney hiding?”

A senior Romney adviser downplayed the new polls at a news briefing Friday morning, saying that they must be midsummer flukes because there had been no “precipitating event” to move the numbers so much. The campaign cited the latest Gallup tracking poll, which has the two candidates in a dead heat at 46-46 percent. Rasmussen, an automated poll that usually leans Republican, has Romney ahead 47-43 in its daily tracking.

One encouraging data point for Romney from the CNN poll: He continues to solidify his party’s support. Fifty-six percent of Romney voters said they strongly support him, up from 47 percent in May.

The poll results only raise the stakes surrounding Romney’s forthcoming vice-presidential rollout and the opportunity to reintroduce himself to the country at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this month. Presidential nominees usually enjoy a bounce in the polls immediately following the convention.

Among the possible vice-presidential selections, Republicans and GOP-leaning independents expressed a marked preference for Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the CNN survey. Both were viewed favorably by at least 50 percent. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty had a favorable rating of 37 percent, with 52 percent either having no opinion or saying they’d never heard of him. Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) was even more of a question mark. Twenty-nine percent viewed him favorably, but 66 percent had no opinion or didn’t know who he was.

The new Reuters/Ipsos poll has Romney trailing Obama 49 percent to 42 percent, up a tick from the six-point spread last month. This comes despite continuing voter pessimism about the country’s condition, Reuters reported. Only 31 percent said the country was moving n the right direction, the lowest proportion since December 2011. Reuters did not report any findings on independents.

If he doesn't release his financial info (which he says he absolutely won't do) these are the folks that will be left to judge its veracity....Apparently- even as FOX news says- the voters are thinking the allegations are true- and losing trust in Romney.....
 
Top