The 2012 Three Ring Circus AKA The US Presidential Election

[Farnhamia]

short and sweet:

they both suck, mitt sucks more.

i'm canadian.

Thanks for your brilliant contribution.

[Free Soviets]

And heaven forefend if he had to admit that he was a....moocher.

Indeed. I don't think he's in any danger of paying no income tax, though. I'm always of two minds about income taxes in campaigns. The whole idea is to pay as little as you legitimately can. It's the annual game we play. Rich people can hire very good tax accountants, I have no problem with that. It's the not reporting some deductions in order to pay more that I find annoying, because it goes against the game and it looks contrived. And I can't help wondering what there is in the returns he won't show us.

i wonder if anybody will ask him point blank if he amended any previous tax returns recently. because, well, releasing a 'summary' make it even more suspicious.

[Northern Dominus]

I cannot wrap my head around why Romney would take all that heat for all those months about such a remarkably unremarkable tax return.

Um, because it's ridiculously low, and it's only one year? If there's nothing to hide in his other tax returns then why has he neglected to produce them?

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us.

Clear enough?

Oh, and in case anybody Ann Romney getting into the gaffe-a-thon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zosKtYkoEuc

[Farnhamia]

I cannot wrap my head around why Romney would take all that heat for all those months about such a remarkably unremarkable tax return.

Um, because it's ridiculously low, and it's only one year? If there's nothing to hide in his other tax returns then why has he neglected to produce them?

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us.

Clear enough?

Oh, and in case anybody Ann Romney getting into the gaffe-a-thon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zosKtYkoEuc

I like it that the Republican backlash is just "nonsense" from the "chattering class." An excellent turn of phrase, that one. And it reminds me of George Bush talking about what hard work it was being President.

[Northern Dominus]

Um, because it's ridiculously low, and it's only one year? If there's nothing to hide in his other tax returns then why has he neglected to produce them?

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us.

Clear enough?

Oh, and in case anybody Ann Romney getting into the gaffe-a-thon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zosKtYkoEuc

I like it that the Republican backlash is just "nonsense" from the "chattering class." An excellent turn of phrase, that one. And it reminds me of George Bush talking about what hard work it was being President.

Between this and Romney's birther joke in Michigan I'm honestly surprised that the trolls haven't started bombarding either of them about questions regarding a second family back in Utah or Mexico, I meann "they're Mormon, you know"....to use American Taliban logic.

[Geilinor]

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us

This is why Romney doesn't want people to know. Especially with his comments calling half the country moochers. At this point we can conclude he has lost enough people to give away the election.

[Frisivisia]

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us

This is why Romney doesn't want people to know. Especially with his comments calling half the country moochers. At this point we can conclude he has lost enough people to give away the election.

Bourgeoisie Buddies: The next "Buddies" sequel?

[Norstal]

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us

This is why Romney doesn't want people to know. Especially with his comments calling half the country moochers. At this point we can conclude he has lost enough people to give away the election.

Dunno. There's a lot of Republicans deluding themselves that they are the ones feeding these moochers.

[PapaJacky]

What's more disdaining is that though the disparity has dropped in the recent years on the Federal level, it hasn't on the state and local levels. Effective tax rates across all 50 states were higher for the bottom 20% and middle 20% of tax payers than it were for the top 1% of them. The Federal budget's important, but balancing state budgets and providing for the tax payers opportunities, to get out of poverty, via tax cuts, also is..

[Free South Califas]

Or, it may be one less vote separating Romney from Obama, and thus that much more of a risk that he wins.

Depends upon which state FSC is from, tbh.

Yep. To the contrary of Wikkiwallana's context-free assertion, I live in a state where Republican presidential candidates never win unless they're from here--and Romney is very much not from here. Not that it matters in my case, frankly, since I wouldn't vote for a war criminal regardless. You gotta draw the line somewhere. I'm willing to entertain voting for right-wing parties like the Democrats in an absolute tactical necessity; that's why I support the open primary system that was just initiated in my state's sub-federal races. (If you haven't figured out where I'm from by now, there's little hope )

Anyway, being a leftist in a state that has been in the bag for Obama since about the time he was born, if anything I have a civic duty to vote for an actual leftist party, and beef up their numbers. Even the most cynical "leftist" (and I'm wondering if that term is really appropriate) can afford for me to do this, and they can worry about their own foolish and cowardly acquiescence to power. Godspeed, if that is your wont, and I hope you see Bradley Manning's blood running down your hands when you lie in bed at night. (General "you", people. Not directed at anyone in particular. Just to be clear.)

For all that people like to rag on Nader, I like to remind them of a couple of points: first, nothing other than arrogance prevented the Democratic Party from teaming up with the Greens to form a genuine left coalition of some sort (not necessarily equal, of course); if they think this would hurt their chances of reaching executive office, they should call for a Second Constitutional Convention to change the terms of the contest, and demand that this Convention give voice to underrepresented minority groups, women, people with disabilities and differences, fundamental concerns over civil liberties and environmental regulations, etc. In other words, the Dems had and have a lot more options than leftist parties had and have. To blame left parties for the intransigence of Democrats is nonsensical and reeks of scapegoating, not to mention close reasoning and perhaps a poorly-thought-out reaction to cognitive dissonance. The fact that the Democrat leadership refuses to do so should be an argument against handing them power, not a tool of intimidation. I mean, I happen to oppose intimidation as a means of democratic organizing, but I know the Democratic Party and the PRI won't necessarily agree with me on that front.

Second, Nader at least had the realistic goal of breaking the 5% (or whatever it is) popular vote threshold to receive federal party-building funds. Building a strong left party is the only foreseeable means of breaking the right-wing hold on power currently exercised by the Democrat and Republican parties. If you don't think that's a worthwhile goal, I question your commitment to the Long Civil Rights Movement, to be honest. Again, even the most cynical tactical-voter should be able to peacefully abide the fact of my contributing to this goal from within a safe (D) enclave.

[Maurepas]

What's more disdaining is that though the disparity has dropped in the recent years on the Federal level, it hasn't on the state and local levels. Effective tax rates across all 50 states were higher for the bottom 20% and middle 20% of tax payers than it were for the top 1% of them. The Federal budget's important, but balancing state budgets and providing for the tax payers opportunities, to get out of poverty, via tax cuts, also is..

On average I get a check which grosses around $537 every two weeks but gets taxed down to $437. A fifth or so down from taxes.

I want a fifth of Romney's wealth taken from his income every two weeks. Probably more.

[PapaJacky]

What's more disdaining is that though the disparity has dropped in the recent years on the Federal level, it hasn't on the state and local levels. Effective tax rates across all 50 states were higher for the bottom 20% and middle 20% of tax payers than it were for the top 1% of them. The Federal budget's important, but balancing state budgets and providing for the tax payers opportunities, to get out of poverty, via tax cuts, also is..

On average I get a check which grosses around $537 every two weeks but gets taxed down to $437. A fifth or so down from taxes.

I want a fifth of Romney's wealth taken from his income every two weeks. Probably more.

Federal Income tax wise, you can actually erase any after-tax burden (that's after tax-credits already) of the Bottom 50% of tax filers (about 68 million households) by simply raising the effective tax rate of the Top 0.1% income earners (their average income is $4.4 million, the income needed to qualify is over $1m) by 3%. Doing the same for the Bottom 75% of tax payers (over 100 million households) would take a larger effective tax rate increase of 18%, though.

For reference, the average effective tax rate of the Top 0.1% of income earners in 2009 was 24%.

[Aryavartha]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

[Not Safe For Work]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

Amusingly, by his own logic... yes. By not claiming all his charitable contributions, be paid more than was legally required.

He "paid more than" was "legally due", and thus - by his own reckoning - is not "qualified to become president".

[The Steel Magnolia]

Depends upon which state FSC is from, tbh.

Yep. To the contrary of Wikkiwallana's context-free assertion, I live in a state where Republican presidential candidates never win unless they're from here--and Romney is very much not from here. Not that it matters in my case, frankly, since I wouldn't vote for a war criminal regardless. You gotta draw the line somewhere. I'm willing to entertain voting for right-wing parties like the Democrats in an absolute tactical necessity; that's why I support the open primary system that was just initiated in my state's sub-federal races. (If you haven't figured out where I'm from by now, there's little hope )

Anyway, being a leftist in a state that has been in the bag for Obama since about the time he was born, if anything I have a civic duty to vote for an actual leftist party, and beef up their numbers. Even the most cynical "leftist" (and I'm wondering if that term is really appropriate) can afford for me to do this, and they can worry about their own foolish and cowardly acquiescence to power. Godspeed, if that is your wont, and I hope you see Bradley Manning's blood running down your hands when you lie in bed at night. (General "you", people. Not directed at anyone in particular. Just to be clear.)

For all that people like to rag on Nader, I like to remind them of a couple of points: first, nothing other than arrogance prevented the Democratic Party from teaming up with the Greens to form a genuine left coalition of some sort (not necessarily equal, of course); if they think this would hurt their chances of reaching executive office, they should call for a Second Constitutional Convention to change the terms of the contest, and demand that this Convention give voice to underrepresented minority groups, women, people with disabilities and differences, fundamental concerns over civil liberties and environmental regulations, etc. In other words, the Dems had and have a lot more options than leftist parties had and have. To blame left parties for the intransigence of Democrats is nonsensical and reeks of scapegoating, not to mention close reasoning and perhaps a poorly-thought-out reaction to cognitive dissonance. The fact that the Democrat leadership refuses to do so should be an argument against handing them power, not a tool of intimidation. I mean, I happen to oppose intimidation as a means of democratic organizing, but I know the Democratic Party and the PRI won't necessarily agree with me on that front.

Second, Nader at least had the realistic goal of breaking the 5% (or whatever it is) popular vote threshold to receive federal party-building funds. Building a strong left party is the only foreseeable means of breaking the right-wing hold on power currently exercised by the Democrat and Republican parties. If you don't think that's a worthwhile goal, I question your commitment to the Long Civil Rights Movement, to be honest. Again, even the most cynical tactical-voter should be able to peacefully abide the fact of my contributing to this goal from within a safe (D) enclave.

*Brianna Manning.

Sorry, just found that a tad ironic.

In any event, I don't necessarily agree with you, and certainly not in entirety, but at the same time I certainly don't begrudge a vote for a third party in an election where you can afford to do so in your state, and I understand legitimate grievances that people have with the Democratic Party, even if I do think that people throw around the term "War Criminal" far too wantonly these days.

[Gauthier]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

Amusingly, by his own logic... yes. By not claiming all his charitable contributions, be paid more than was legally required.

He "paid more than" was "legally due", and thus - by his own reckoning - is not "qualified to become president".

He put himself in that spot from the beginning. He voluntarily paid more than was required of him so he could claim to have paid no less than 14% in taxes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

True, but it's not a winning strategy to address that too much.

[San Thomas]

I just want to know this: what possible good would Ann's statements do? At best she sounds like a mother scolding children, at worst she just sounds like she's whining for Mitt.

Maybe they're hoping to get a replay of the mentality that showed up in the Palin-Biden debate of the last election. Remember that one, when Biden had to pull his punches so he wouldn't look like he was bullying a female rookie? "Look at those mean democrats, they're making Ann Romney cry!"

I can't see it playing out that way, but I've never been too susceptible to emotional arguments. I really couldn't understand the reasoning behind the Palin-Biden thing either. Either you're ready to play with the big boys or you're not, in which case you shouldn't be in the game to start to with.

[New Chalcedon]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

Technically true, but it would look very much like grasping at straws to point that out.

Scratch that, it would be grasping at straws. Better to keep up the heat on his tax returns on two counts:

(1) Did he claim the 2009 amnesty for people who had violated the tax laws? If not, prove it by releasing the returns; and
(2) Did he, in fact, quit Bain in 1999, even though both he and Bain were saying in 2002 that he was the CEO? If he did, then the tax returns for those years should show the fact.

(Mind you, if he did quit Bain in 1999, then he was elected Governor of Massachusetts under false pretences, as the MA Constitution prohibits non-residents from running for office, and Romney was judged to hold residency - in his son's basement, no less! - on the basis of his ongoing work for Bain, in 2002. But that should be brought up a bit later.)

[Farnhamia]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

Technically true, but it would look very much like grasping at straws to point that out.

Scratch that, it would be grasping at straws. Better to keep up the heat on his tax returns on two counts:

(1) Did he claim the 2009 amnesty for people who had violated the tax laws? If not, prove it by releasing the returns; and
(2) Did he, in fact, quit Bain in 1999, even though both he and Bain were saying in 2002 that he was the CEO? If he did, then the tax returns for those years should show the fact.

(Mind you, if he did quit Bain in 1999, then he was elected Governor of Massachusetts under false pretences, as the MA Constitution prohibits non-residents from running for office, and Romney was judged to hold residency - in his son's basement, no less! - on the basis of his ongoing work for Bain, in 2002. But that should be brought up a bit later.)

See, I think it's something like the Bain thing, was he there or was he not? Of course, it might have started with a desire to not have the details of just how freaking rich he really is out there in public. Too late to fix that one, everyone knows God comes to Mitt when he needs a loan.

[Revolutopia]

Technically true, but it would look very much like grasping at straws to point that out.

Scratch that, it would be grasping at straws. Better to keep up the heat on his tax returns on two counts:

(1) Did he claim the 2009 amnesty for people who had violated the tax laws? If not, prove it by releasing the returns; and
(2) Did he, in fact, quit Bain in 1999, even though both he and Bain were saying in 2002 that he was the CEO? If he did, then the tax returns for those years should show the fact.

(Mind you, if he did quit Bain in 1999, then he was elected Governor of Massachusetts under false pretences, as the MA Constitution prohibits non-residents from running for office, and Romney was judged to hold residency - in his son's basement, no less! - on the basis of his ongoing work for Bain, in 2002. But that should be brought up a bit later.)

See, I think it's something like the Bain thing, was he there or was he not? Of course, it might have started with a desire to not have the details of just how freaking rich he really is out there in public. Too late to fix that one, everyone knows God comes to Mitt when he needs a loan.

I have a minor hypothesis that there is also probably an issue of him giving some controversial donation to some "liberal" organization like Planned Parenthood when he was planning his run for governor of Massachusetts. In that, something like him being super rich or Bain's corporate policies wouldn't have been controversial among his Republican Primary race thus there would have been no reason for not to release them then and have them being a dead issue come his head on against Obama. Yet, if became known among the Religious Right that Romney gave a large sum of money to Planned Parenthood they would have completely abandoned him, both during the primaries and in the general.

Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if Romney didn't see an increase in wealth from 2008 to 2012 which harm his "Where you better off four years ago?" argument as the Democrats could point out that through Obama's policies/term Romney has seen his wealth increase thus yes he is better off under Obama then he was four years ago.

[Olahomia]

Obama had done an amazing job for years but its time for new face and i suppose that Romney can lead the country for next years..

[Sdaeriji]

I cannot wrap my head around why Romney would take all that heat for all those months about such a remarkably unremarkable tax return.

Um, because it's ridiculously low, and it's only one year? If there's nothing to hide in his other tax returns then why has he neglected to produce them?

Or it could be that despite being a multi-multi millionare Mitt paid an effectively lower tax rate than a vast majority of Americans and wants to give himself and his bourgeoisie buddies yet more tax breaks without elaborating how the debt won't be foisted upon the rest of us.

Clear enough?

Oh, and in case anybody Ann Romney getting into the gaffe-a-thon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zosKtYkoEuc

Farnhamia already pointed out that this isn't the tax return I thought it was, but the point is we already knew all of this. We already knew he pays a lower rate than most Americans. That's not shocking. It makes you wonder what he has in those older tax returns that he's willing to allow speculation to continue rather than just releasing them and getting it out in the open.

[Ashmoria]

apologies if this point was posted earlier.

- I understand that Romney did not claim all his deduction so he can pay more than what he had to.

- He also earlier said, "I don’t pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president. I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires"

so he disqualified himself

he was between a rock and a hard place, eh?

luckily he can ammend this return and claim his full charitible deduction later on.

[Ashmoria]

Obama had done an amazing job for years but its time for new face and i suppose that Romney can lead the country for next years..

its not time for a new face. i like mr obama's face very much.