rickyp wrote:ray

The form is not sent to the IRS.

On the IRS website it says of the 8938

"File with income tax return pursuant to instructions for filing the return

On the IRS website it says of the 90-22 Mail to:
Department of the Treasury
Post Office Box 32621
Detroit, MI 48232-0621
For express mail to:
IRS Enterprise Computing Center
ATTN: CTR Operations
Mailroom, 4th Floor
985 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226

I saw the same thing. Then I did a google image search on "TD F 90-22" and found THIS image of the form itself. Clear as day right at the top it says: "Do NOT file with your Federal Tax Return."

Go figure.

Ricky:

ray

The form is not sent to the IRS.

On the IRS website it says of the 8938
"File with income tax return pursuant to instructions for filing the return

so this has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Yet you quote my statement first. This is why many people view you as dishonest.

However, you are correct that the Form TD F 90-22.1 can be seen by the IRS. However, it is not an IRS form. It is a Treasury Department Form, hence the "TD". I don't know of any other tax form that starts with TD.

Ricky:

Both report assets. If asset values change from year to year .... that would indicate income or additional investment...

Now you are shamelessly making stuff up. The TD F 90-22.1 does not provide specific asset values. You just report whether your assets are over $10,000 and/or over $100,000. There's no way that you can figure out income from that. If your assets are over $100,000 year after year (which sounds like Mitt), you cannot figure out any income or loss from the TD F 90-22.1.

Ricky, based on Purples comment on Iranian investments and your obfuscation on the TD F 90-22.1, I think you've answered Dr. Fate's question. Liberals can stoop even lower.

Sassenach wrote:It does seem reasonable to conclude that Romney has something to hide as regards his tax returns. It's probably not anything illegal or flagrantly immoral, but one suspects that the true extent of his holdings in offshore tax havens is something he's unlikely to want to reveal.

Given the Obama Campaign's desperation to talk about ANYTHING but his record and the economy, you don't think it's reasonable that all they want is a lot of paper to "go fishing" in?

I don't really buy this idea that since he's been a Presidential candidate for so long he's bound to be clean either. Romney has displayed a remarkable inability to comprehend how the ordinary guy relates to his ostentatious wealth throughout this campaign, so it's easy to conceive of him having given no thought to onshoring his wealth and paying the same taxes as everybody else until very late in the day. Bear in mind also that up until 2009 it wasn't even an issue. It was only once the banks went under and mass public resentment against the financial class sprung up that people started to make great play about the morality of sequestering your funds in offshore tax havens.

Just to be clear: you think it's possible that Reid is telling the truth? Please say "no."

Purple wrote:RickyP should, in my opinion and for the sake of his credibility, retract the accusation.

*On page 3 of Sched. A of THIS form he starts the alphabetical listing of equity investments.

Btw, thank you for all that effort!

Now, about the retraction . . . it should happen about the same time Biden endorses Romney.

Here's a very liberal man analyzing Reid's attacks--and the Presiden't lack of response:

Still, he is not some backbencher, but the Senate majority leader. He is the face of the Democratic Party in the Senate and the ally of President Obama. Yet, not a single Democrat has had the spine to rebuke Reid. The White House has been given the chance and explicitly ducked its duty. Other members of the Senate have run for cover. They fear Reid and, if truth be told, sort of like what he’s doing — constantly needling Romney, keeping him on the defensive about taxes and his insistence on releasing only two years of his returns.

The politics of this squabble are delightful. But Reid has managed to draw both his party and his president into the gutter with him. When Reid accuses the Republicans of being overly partisan, he now lacks all credibility. For a long time it’s been difficult to believe anything he says. Now, it’s impossible.

As for Obama, he is tarnished by this episode. The fresh new face that promised us all a different kind of politics is suddenly looking cheesy. The soaring rhetoric that Obama used in his first campaign has come to ground in the mud of Harry Reid’s latter-day McCarthyism.

When Cohen agrees with me, even the most liberal nut here ought to think twice.

Doctor Fate wrote:Given the Obama Campaign's desperation to talk about ANYTHING but his record and the economy, you don't think it's reasonable that all they want is a lot of paper to "go fishing" in?

But surely Romney and his team, having run for the Presidency in 2008, and then had him considered for VP the same year, and then spending the last four years gearing up for the 2012 election would already themselves have gone through the papers to see if there's any issues?

If not, then they are idiots. So frankly, I doubt it.

If so, they would have been smart to head off any problems before releasing documents. Perhaps that's what they are still doing, perhaps they want to wait until after the RNC to make sure there's no hint or problems before the nomination is signed and sealed.

There are two reasons for holding off. One is that there really is something that can be made out as a problem. I don't blame them for not wanting such information to get out, but tongues will wag in the absence of clalrification.

Another is simply to leave it until later on to distract the Democrats. That relies on no problems at all being found in the returns, but if that's the case, it could be a very canny move.

Anyway, I'm still confused as to why mentioning the horse is so bad. Yes, Ann Romney uses it for 'therapy' for her MS. The original ad juxtaposed the money spent on keeping the horse healthy when one of it's owners opposes the ACA. By getting hysterical about the MS angle, it highlights that for very rich people with MS, you can spend tens of thousands on looking after a horse to cheer them up. But what do ordinary people with MS do if they can't afford an expensive hobby? Under pre-ACA rules allowing exclusion of 'pre-existing conditions', did many MS sufferers even get full access to drugs?

The ad did not mention Ann Romney by name, and did not mention her MS, so was not aimed in that way. But the response has opened the door to asking simply why it is that not all people with MS get the same kind of privileges as Mrs Romney.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Given the Obama Campaign's desperation to talk about ANYTHING but his record and the economy, you don't think it's reasonable that all they want is a lot of paper to "go fishing" in?

But surely Romney and his team, having run for the Presidency in 2008, and then had him considered for VP the same year, and then spending the last four years gearing up for the 2012 election would already themselves have gone through the papers to see if there's any issues?

If not, then they are idiots. So frankly, I doubt it.

Swing . . . and a miss.

You simply don't get it.

All Obama and Co need are the documents. From them, you draw something out that requires explanation. Then another item . . and another . . . and another. The whole campaign becomes a discussion over Romney's wealth--that is the only way Obama can win. It doesn't matter if EVERYTHING Romney did is legitimate because the only thing up for discussion is Romney's wealth.

If you don't get the horse thing, it can't be explained. There were plenty of ways to go after his wealth; this was a subtle, personal attack on his wife.

Doctor Fate wrote:All Obama and Co need are the documents. From them, you draw something out that requires explanation. Then another item . . and another . . . and another. The whole campaign becomes a discussion over Romney's wealth--that is the only way Obama can win. It doesn't matter if EVERYTHING Romney did is legitimate because the only thing up for discussion is Romney's wealth.

It's not just about his wealth. It's about how much of his income is paid out in taxes, and how much he wants to make things easier for rich people like him to pay even less.

But yes, I can see why he would wait until later on, on the basis that it would be a large distraction.

If you don't get the horse thing, it can't be explained. There were plenty of ways to go after his wealth; this was a subtle, personal attack on his wife.

I think that without evidence of actual intent, you are merely projecting here.

Still, now that you brought up the MS, can you explain whether such a debilitating and chronic condition that is effectively random (so not caused by 'bad life choices') is treated the same way in the US for ordinary working Americans as it is for the wives of millionaires?

danivon wrote:Still, now that you brought up the MS, can you explain whether such a debilitating and chronic condition that is effectively random (so not caused by 'bad life choices') is treated the same way in the US for ordinary working Americans as it is for the wives of millionaires?

Thus, demonstrating your sense of fairness and compassion. Thanks for that revealing self-portrait.

Indeed, DF. How dare I ask about the wider issues of healthcare and access to it! We should only discuss the meta-issues of how people campaign and what you read between lines as opposed to what is actually said.

I'll let you get back to generalising about your political opponents, and scoring points against the open goal that Ricky sets up.

danivon wrote:Indeed, DF. How dare I ask about the wider issues of healthcare and access to it! We should only discuss the meta-issues of how people campaign and what you read between lines as opposed to what is actually said.

I'll let you get back to generalising about your political opponents, and scoring points against the open goal that Ricky sets up.

Not what you did at all. You managed to take another swipe and Romney and his wife while simultaneously complaining about American healthcare. That was worthy of the worst of demagogues.

Yet again, you read intent into something, without demonstrating that it was there.

I was not trying to be nasty about Ann Romney. I'm asking about the wider issues concerning how people with a pretty nasty and debilitation condition are treated. it's a political issue, and yes, it's about Healthcare - which I was not aware had become a taboo subject.

It is good for Ann Romney that she has access to a pursuit that helps her through her condition. But the issue is not about her. It's that Mitt Romney's policy on the ACA would reverse improvements to access to healthcare for a lot of other people with chronic conditions, if it restores the ability to refuse to insure 'pre-existing conditions'.

I can see why you may not want to discuss that, but it's not 'trolling' to discuss policy and it's effects. And you have tried this before - telling me what I 'think' and what my posts are 'intended' to do. Apparently, what you do is not 'trolling', but anything I do is.

So, if you want to just make it about personalities, it's time to stop. As I said before, I'll leave you to it.

purple

RickyP should, in my opinion and for the sake of his credibility, retract the accusation.

I'll never trust Daily Kos again.
I'm sticking with Fox news who said:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney promised in 2007 he would shed any investments that conflicted with Republican positions on hot-button domestic and foreign policy issues. But Romney's family trusts kept some of those holdings and repeatedly bought new ones until 2010, when they were finally sold off for more than $3 million, according to a detailed review of Romney's financial records by The Associated Press.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/02/ro ... z22nxyLxA3

By the way, if he is releasing his 2011 forms, they'll include his 8938, which does contain values of foreign holdings and is definitely filed with his taxes...

I'll let you put you in check.

danivon wrote:I can see why you may not want to discuss that, but it's not 'trolling' to discuss policy and it's effects.

danivon, saving Doctor Fate time wrote:Yet again, you read intent into something, without demonstrating that it was there.

I didn't say you were trolling, but I understand that you reflexively feel guilty.

It is good for Ann Romney that she has access to a pursuit that helps her through her condition.
But the issue is not about her.

Since she's the one who has MS and they say the horse is therapeutic, only moveon or someone of their caliber would say it's not about her. That ad is an indirect attack on her.

It's that Mitt Romney's policy on the ACA would reverse improvements to access to healthcare for a lot of other people with chronic conditions, if it restores the ability to refuse to insure 'pre-existing conditions'.

But, we don't know that. All we do know is he says he will repeal the ACA, which is an overwhelmingly popular position. I suspect the GOP will do something with this issue, but we don't know. You are simply . . . projecting.

So..Romney wants to get rid of the ACA (including the provision regarding not excluding people with pre-existing conditions), has put forth no proposal that would protect people with pre-existing conditions, and yet we're going to assume that Romney will do something about it? You got it exactily the reverse of reality, DF--you are speculating Danivon is not.

Interesting that Mitt Romeny has attended major dressage events where the horse competed: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... d-blessing

I am having a lot of trouble understanding why you need an elite horse that competes in the Olympics in order to receive therapy. Shouldn't an ordinary horse do? Just because Ann Romney incidentally uses the horse for dressage does not mean that the Obama campaign cannot use that horse to show how out of touch Romney is. Does Ann Romney get credit if the horse wins in the Oympics?Ann Romney was not attacked in the ad and clearly that horse is not solely being used to treat Ann Romney's MS. This is a completely made up issue. The Romneys just used the fact that Ann Romney is using this horse to help in her therapy as a means of trying to deflecf the fact that the Romneys own a horse that competes in dressage. Of course DF, a true believer if there ever was one, buys it hook, line and sinker.

Who cares about the horse!??! If it is not paid for by Government funding then who the H*** gives a rip!!!!!!!???

I am more concerned with Michelle and her trips all around the world, spending my money. But I did not bring it it up, as it seemed petty to me. Much less petty than the Romney issue, but petty all the same. For goodness sakes. get a life.