So yes, all in the public domain then.

Look Steve, as I've stated before many times, I'm not an advocate for Obama. I am interested in American politics of course or I wouldn't spend time here, but I'm not especially partisan. Just because I'm interested in whether Romney's tax details might be politically damaging for him it doesn't mean that I automatically think everything in Obama's past is hunky dory. It just isn't relevant to a thread about the Republican nomination....

Sassenach wrote:So yes, all in the public domain then.

Look Steve, as I've stated before many times, I'm not an advocate for Obama. I am interested in American politics of course or I wouldn't spend time here, but I'm not especially partisan. Just because I'm interested in whether Romney's tax details might be politically damaging for him it doesn't mean that I automatically think everything in Obama's past is hunky dory. It just isn't relevant to a thread about the Republican nomination....

Last part--true.

However, look at the analysis of the GOP candidates. Compare it with what Obama didn't get. Compare it with what Obama's not getting now. Holder has multiple scandals. The TSA is a joke. Syria, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen are in turmoil, yet foreign policy is a strength? We have record deficits and no plan from the President. We have the slowest recovery in modern American history. So, the key issue is Gingrich's ex-wife? Romney's tax returns?

Well no, clearly these are not the key issues, but this isn't the general election, it's an internal process of the Republican Party and it's what the various cadidates and their associated PACs are choosing to make the running on. Romney's tax returns and his history with Bain Capital didn't become a media issue till Gingrich and Perry tried to make it one. Newt's ex wife was just an old story until (I presume) some friends of Romney's decided to hit back by roping her in to try and held destroy his candidacy.

Any scandals connected to Obama will surely get an airing once the Republican nominee has been decided. He did get an easy ride last time, probably because his opponents were worried about being painted racists, but that isn't going to be a concern 4 years on and I'm confidently expecting the mud to fly from all angles. Right now though we're talking about the Republicans, and I for one think that Romney's tax returns are going to be a fairly big issue.

Sassenach wrote:. . .and I for one think that Romney's tax returns are going to be a fairly big issue.

Based on your own gut feeling.

Whatever else is true about Romney, he's been planning on running again since he gave up the last time. If his public persona as a careful man has any validity, why would you suppose there are smoking guns there?

And, I'll bet you none of the serious character issues surrounding Obama get any airing on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NYT, WaPo, LAT, Time, etc. Why? Because to them he is god.

Whatever else is true about Romney, he's been planning on running again since he gave up the last time. If his public persona as a careful man has any validity, why would you suppose there are smoking guns there?

It's not so much that I think there's a 'smoking gun' as such. What I suspect we'll see (if the relevant tax returns are ever released) is that Romney, through clever use of his Wall Street contacts, may have managed to make a tidy profit out of financial dealings during the period where the economy was tanking. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this and it probably wouldn't hurt him with Republican voters, but it's the sort of thing that would look really bad to independents and would serve to reinforce the image that he's an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to ordinary Americans.

Like I said, this is just a gut instinct and could easily be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Sassenach wrote:

Whatever else is true about Romney, he's been planning on running again since he gave up the last time. If his public persona as a careful man has any validity, why would you suppose there are smoking guns there?

It's not so much that I think there's a 'smoking gun' as such. What I suspect we'll see (if the relevant tax returns are ever released) is that Romney, through clever use of his Wall Street contacts, may have managed to make a tidy profit out of financial dealings during the period where the economy was tanking. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this and it probably wouldn't hurt him with Republican voters, but it's the sort of thing that would look really bad to independents and would serve to reinforce the image that he's an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to ordinary Americans.

Like I said, this is just a gut instinct and could easily be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Well, my gut instinct is that the President used to be a crack dealer, who was blackmailed by Rahm Emanuel, but was able to get him off his back by using Rezko's muscle. I could be wrong though.

Come on! Really? Your "gut instinct?" Why? Because Romney is so much like Soros?

Steve, why are you repeatedly going back to 'Obama' when the discussion is about the Republican Nomination? The question surely is who will the Republicans put up against him, not what a horrible, awful, destructive, insert whatever you like President he is.

Anyone would think you are a partisan hack trying to avoid thinking about the slow-moving car crash that is the race up to now.

Sassenach wrote:It's not so much that I think there's a 'smoking gun' as such. What I suspect we'll see (if the relevant tax returns are ever released) is that Romney, through clever use of his Wall Street contacts, may have managed to make a tidy profit out of financial dealings during the period where the economy was tanking.

This makes sense. It's not that the guy is rich (you have to be pretty rich to have a run for President). It's how he appears to voters. A lot of people voting in the primaries will be blue-collar Republicans. Just because they may not like Obama and the Democrats doesn't mean they'll be looking too favourably at a Wall St guy making millions, paying less in taxes than they do, and profiting when people get laid off.

It's also related in part to his personal image. He appears aloof, a bit dry, not particularly self-effacing. All the things that counted against Gore, Kerry and may be a liability for Obama this time. Combine that with a hint that he's doing well while ordinary Joes (like, say that Plumber guy from the 2008 race) struggle, and it won't spur enthusiasm.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this and it probably wouldn't hurt him with Republican voters, but it's the sort of thing that would look really bad to independents and would serve to reinforce the image that he's an out of touch rich guy who can't relate to ordinary Americans.

The thing is that outside the 25-30% of Republicans who support him, there are a load who are clearly willing to support anyone else. Rarely has the collapsing support of a rival led to a surge for Romney. Instead it goes to another rival. This hints at a reluctance to back Romney among the 'base'. If there are reasons to confirm this reluctance, they will be used as rationalisations.

So I think it can hurt him with Republicans.

Like I said, this is just a gut instinct and could easily be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Problem is that the chances are his tax returns are not that bad, or could be spun reasonably well. But he's been caught out by a deft move from Newt, even if it's a bit snide. He handled the ambush poorly, and flubbed the response, which should have been "sure I'll release my tax returns", not that he'd 'probably' release the latest one in due course. It comes off as if he has something to hide. The longer he prevaricates, the worse it looks.

So, when the returns are released, they will be pored over with fine toothcombs by Democrats and by his rivals. So, if there's a problem, even one that Romney is not aware of or responsible for, it will be blown up. Which means, I expect, that his team are poring over it in detail which will delay the publication of them...

Sure, Gingrich has the same issue with his ethics violations, but the thing is that Gingrich does attack-dog far better than Romney. Which I think is another reason for Gingrich snatching SC - voters there are angry at Obama and want a candidate to be angry for them. Romney doesn't do angry very well.

Come on! Really? Your "gut instinct?"

I'm not trying to prove anything Steve, and never claimed to be. I raised this issue as a minor talking point.

I've already explained what it it I thinkm might be found in Romney's tax returns and why that might be politically damaging for him so there's no real need to keep repeating myself. The reason I think it's not especially improbable is because Romney is a Wall St insider who made his fortune through financial engineering. He certainly wouldn't be the only one to have profited from the slump, far from it.

Top ten reasons why Romney is reluctant to release tax filings:

10. Embarressed by annual maximum donation to Communist Party of America

9. Will have to explain that he thought tithing to the church meant $10 a year...

8. Can't count that high

7. Major line up at the mall tax centre.

6. Has three other women listed as dependents

5. Lost a house somewhere... still looking.

4. took advice from a historian.

3. Funny thing, he actually lost money last year.

2. Still trying to get his hair products listed as medical cost deduction.

1. Waiting to do Letterman show, where he'll make the official announcement.

Sassenach wrote:I've already explained what it I think might be found in Romney's tax returns and why that might be politically damaging for him so there's no real need to keep repeating myself. The reason I think it's not especially improbable is because Romney is a Wall St insider who made his fortune through financial engineering. He certainly wouldn't be the only one to have profited from the slump, far from it.

I've heard speculation on two things that might be damaging:
1) He gave a lot of money to the Mormon Church, like in the 8 figures. There is thinking that if he releases the tax return, it will just show the amount of charitable donations, but not the schedule showing who received what.

2) His sources of income are very complex and include partnerships and trusts in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or such places. They are entirely legit & declared holdings, but the campaign is worried about the headline "Romney holds $xx,xxx,xxx in off-shore tax haven." So when he releases the tax return the schedule with the sources of unearned income will not be included but the total will be.

Complete speculation, though.

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I've already explained what it I think might be found in Romney's tax returns and why that might be politically damaging for him so there's no real need to keep repeating myself. The reason I think it's not especially improbable is because Romney is a Wall St insider who made his fortune through financial engineering. He certainly wouldn't be the only one to have profited from the slump, far from it.

I've heard speculation on two things that might be damaging:
1) He gave a lot of money to the Mormon Church, like in the 8 figures. There is thinking that if he releases the tax return, it will just show the amount of charitable donations, but not the schedule showing who received what.

I don't know about 8-figures, but I am sure that is true. He used to be a Stake President, which is someone who presides over 6-10 congregations--no small office. To maintain a Temple recommend, one must tithe on gross earnings, obey the Word of Wisdom (no drinking, smoking, drinking coffee and a few other odds and ends), be a regular attender, etc.

So, if his being a good Mormon is an issue, he's smoked.

2) His sources of income are very complex and include partnerships and trusts in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or such places. They are entirely legit & declared holdings, but the campaign is worried about the headline "Romney holds $xx,xxx,xxx in off-shore tax haven." So when he releases the tax return the schedule with the sources of unearned income will not be included but the total will be.

Complete speculation, though.

I think this is true, BUT . . . did they go through John Kerry, oh, excuse me, his wife's finances like this? At least the man made his own way.

This class envy stuff is nonsense. If that's the litmus test, I ought to run. I can paint Obama as a 1%, completely out of touch with middle class Americans.

Doctor Fate wrote:I think this is true, BUT . . . did they go through John Kerry, oh, excuse me, his wife's finances like this? At least the man made his own way.

This class envy stuff is nonsense. If that's the litmus test, I ought to run. I can paint Obama as a 1%, completely out of touch with middle class Americans.

'Class envy' may be nonsense, but you do keep going on about Mrs Heinz-Kerry. It was 8 years ago, man, and the guy lost. What's more you are missing out that Kerry was already wealthy, being descended from a rich set of Forbses who left the odd trust fund or four. If you are going to be jealous of John Kerry's unearned wealth, at least identify the source.

Still, it's fine to be envious of Kerry for marrying Teresa. She was pretty good looking for a 50-year old woman when he met her.

But back to the 2012 election...

At the moment, Gingrich (and others) are gunning for Romney over not just that he's rich, but how he got rich. If they can also find some way of attacking how he stays rich as well, they will. Salting away millions in complex tax-avoiding instruments is perfectly legal. Will it come across well to Americans suffering with post-crunch recession blues and high unemployment?

Or how about that he doesn't even pay 15% as he stated because much of his gains are unrealized off shore monies awaiting a tax holiday before repatriating them. It's fill in the blank until he serves up the facts.

dan

Salting away millions in complex tax-avoiding instruments is perfectly legal. Will it come across well to Americans suffering with post-crunch recession blues and high unemployment?

It certainly appeals to the notion of Tea Party members that the system has been gamed against ordinary citizens by government. Access to tax avoidance schemes written by and for wall street corporations who then needed a bail out from ordinary folk.
(Not saying this is true, but it fits the bill for Tea party belief, and Gingrich is playing to that core.)

Funny how it dovetails so nicely with Occupy Wall Street memes.