GOP Failure Watch Part III

But here's the thing: this man has been running for President for what? 6 years now? Given that, why on earth didn't he arrange his finances such that they were beyond reproach? Or at least such that nothing reported on his tax returns is so shameful that he can't release them? Especially 2011, for pete's sake.

Because he's not part of the reality based community?

I was offering a possible explanation-- not an excuse.

How do you know he didn't do exactly that?

How are you going to react where there isn't anything unusual or unknown found in his returns? It's not all that unusual to have business taxes extended.

Hubris.....

YOU people tend to forget that Mittens and Ayn Rmoney are smarter than you and know better than little people..

Besides, It worked in Massachusetts, why shouldn't it work at the national level?

I'd wonder why he was so willing to take such a political hit when he could've just done the customary presidential candidate thing and released 10 years of tax returns.

Right, but that's probably the most benign thing in the whole discussion.

Like, why just two years of returns? Why not 2002-2008? Surely it's not a coincidence that his investment income presumably constituted a higher percentage of his overall income in the boom years, lowering his effective tax rate to a level that would draw resentment from average working folks?

And this isn't the first time he's been kinda secretive about his taxes. Remember back in 1994, when he weaseled out of a "I'll show mine if you show yours" deal with Ted Kennedy?

Aaaaand in 2002, he refused to show his while demanding that his opponent show her husband's returns.

You know the old saying, fool me thrice, Romney is someone who's, at best, really ashamed of his effective low tax rate.

How much of a political hit is it? I haven't heard it anywhere other than in these boards.

Not specifically the extension for 2011, but his general dodging of the tax question has hurt him in a few news cycles and has (probably) helped cement his media narrative. For someone who's facing an uphill battle, letting a narrative solidify when simply releasing all his returns seems reckless.

That's the point, isn't it? I don't know because he hasn't deemed me worthy to know.

Probably with befuddlement over why he didn't release them sooner.

Nominees for cabinet positions are required to provide the Senate with 10 years of tax returns. Why shouldn't you be held to the same standard as the people you choose to serve in your cabinet?

Seems like a killer debate question for Obama to ask (or a moderator, if any of them have the balls to ask it). Can't Romney and his advisors see this coming? Seriously.

Maryland Representative Roscoe Bartlett apologizes for invoking Holocaust.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6524c4-f860-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html

Am I allowed to ask why he had a TelePrompTer for that?

Not to belabor the point, but RINOs supporting the party mostly on economic issues simply aren't paying attention. While I don't usually agree with the old-school Republican economics, at least the process by which they came to their points was rational. That is no longer the case.

I would say this in response:
1. Large companies tend to have a much more efficient supply chain due to economies of scale. Wal-Mart is nominally a retailer but the real success of their business model lies in supply chain management. Not sure how that is a bad thing.
2. Wal-Mart's record on labor is terrible. That's all I have to say about that.
3. Large companies with economies of scale are going to benefit more from infrastructure spending (good roads, good rails etc) that will smaller companies. That's a fact of life. It actually strengthens the argument FOR increased government spending (when applied properly) because that spending to improve the infrastructure increases private sector efficiency.

So Obama is "extremely" wealthy and thus can't connect with the "common man" but the vastly more wealthy Romney understands them better? If she'd contradicted herself more in one minute than she did she'd get honorary membership into the Romney family.

This is capitalist economics at work. Wal-Mart is easy to pin-point because they are highly visible but it's how capitalism works. For example, 15 years ago when I lived in New York and my girlfriend lived in Florida, when I wanted to visit her I called my local travel agent and arranged the trip. Today when I want to travel I go to Yahoo Travel and book a plane ticket, a rental car and a hotel in 5 minutes. The reality of the market changes.

Are you seriously that dense? The teleprompter is for invisible Obama.

So you don't think near universal healthcare coverage, the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, the Lilly Ledbetter Act etc. nearly equate to the change of "The Great Society?"

She's not gonna run from that but she also can't really explain it...

He still hasn't released the full 2010 release.

Also Wisconsin. Wisconsin!

Romney is, after all, a businessman. You don't throw good money after failing projects.

If it were the Democrats I'd say the Roadrunner but I think you hit the nail on the head.

A couple of weeks? I'm functionally retarded in political terms and I can probably find something in an hour.

My bad

You mean it's not unusual to have a person who made $21 million in a single year pay a lower tax rate than I did? And we're not talking about business taxes. We're talking about Romney's personal tax returns (unless you subscribe to the notion that "corporations are people my friends").

If it's not unusual for someone making $21 million in a single year to pay a lower tax rate than I did (even including all the charitable deductions, of which there were many, the homeowner deductions, etc.) then yes, I would argue that the tax code favors the rich and needs to be reformed.