Forums - Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?

Forums (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/index.php)
- Politics & Religion (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=27)
-- Why is Romney not disclosing his returns? (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=247583)

Posted by noob_trad3r on 08-15-12 07:28 PM:

Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?

The non disclosure is doing damage. more damage than disclosure. Unless

So something makes no sense.

#1 if he barely paid any taxes, so what if he releases it it will be a big yawn and everyone would think "I knew that" and end of story.

The only thing I could think is he broke the law and has committed tax evasion. Releasing returns would put him liable for charges.

Any other theories?

Posted by trefoil on 08-15-12 07:45 PM:

As I recall, it was something along the lines of putting some shares from Bain in his IRA/401k at some nominal value, which then wound up being valued at quite a bit more later.
Which, on googling, turns out to be one of the theories that would both explain the low tax rate and his huge IRA:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...agical-ira.html

On July 3, Current TV host Jennifer Granholm, a former Democratic governor of Michigan, invited Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, on her show to discuss how Romney could have accomplished this remarkable feat. There were “only two possibilities,” Kleinbard told Granholm. Either “from a little acorn, a mighty oak grew very, very quickly, extraordinarily so,” Kleinbard explained, causing Granholm to interject, “What little acorn could grow to be $101 million? I want to get some of that acorn!”

The other possibility, Kleinbard suggested, was not dissimilar to what Maremont theorized: that Romney contributed limited-partnership interests in Bain’s buyouts to his IRA. What was “quite troubling” to Kleinbard is that he suspected Romney may have contributed these interests to his IRA at a fraction of their market value -- “pennies on the dollar” -- and well below what he might have charged you or me. When the buyouts became successful, Kleinbard proposed, the pennies on the dollar were suddenly worth real dollars.

“What’s very frustrating to me about all this is that we can only talk in abstractions and generalities because, again, of the lack of disclosure,” Kleinbard said.

Without mentioning the heroics Romney has accomplished in his IRA, the New York Times editorialized on July 10 that the rest of Romney’s opaque “tax avoidance” schemes -- including overseas shelters in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and elsewhere -- amount to nothing short of a “financial black hole” that he would be well advised to explain to the public. He should put explaining his magical IRA at the top of the list.

Posted by noob_trad3r on 08-15-12 07:47 PM:

Quote from trefoil:

As I recall, it was something along the lines of putting some shares from Bain in his IRA/401k at some nominal value, which then wound up being valued at quite a bit more later.
Which, on googling, turns out to be one of the theories that would both explain the low tax rate and his huge IRA:

[/B]

Funny you mention that. My wife said something that his IRA was X amount of dollars and she that that made no sense. I told here I agree but that maybe she heard something wrong.

Since 401Ks are capped in the amount you can put into every year.

but all this speculation is not helping him.

He needs to throw all the cards on the table and take his beatings at one time and be done. What he is doing is much worse, nothing like mystery and uncertainty to really make hime look worse to the public.

Unless he broke IRS laws and disclosure puts him into a situation of criminal liability.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 07:50 PM:

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Funny you mention that. My wife said something that his IRA was X amount of dollars and she that that made no sense. I told here I agree but that maybe she heard something wrong.

Since 401Ks are capped in the amount you can put into every year.

romneys ira is something like 103 million. not possible with out going into grey areas of the law.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 07:54 PM:

Two Years’ Returns Not Enough for Romney Either
August 15, 2012 at 2:03 pm Ed Brayton
As Mitt Romney refuses to release more than two years of his own tax returns (in fact he’s only released one so far, but has said he’ll release a second year), it seems that’s not good enough for his own potential vice presidential candidates. He required more from them during the vetting process.

The campaign team for Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, reviewed several years of tax returns from Ryan and others, according to Beth Myers, the head of Romney’s vice presidential search process.

But Romney – a former private equity executive with an estimated net worth of up to $250 million – has refused to publicly release more than two years of tax returns…

During an interview with Romney on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, Ryan said he would follow Romney’s lead and release two years of his tax returns.

Tim Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor who was a potential Romney running mate, said he also had to submit several years of tax returns during the search for a Republican vice presidential candidate.

“So more than two?” asked George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week.”

“Well, we don’t get into the details of the vetting process, but I gave him a bunch of tax returns,” Pawlenty replied. “I don’t remember the exact number of years.”
So the candidate for vice president has to show many years of returns to him, but two years is enough for voters, err, I mean, “you people.” Isn’t that convenient for him?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by jem on 08-15-12 07:59 PM:

since Obama built it, he should know it. News cycle is over..
Ryan is the topic now.

__________________
"From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

Posted by trefoil on 08-15-12 08:01 PM:

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Funny you mention that. My wife said something that his IRA was X amount of dollars and she that that made no sense. I told here I agree but that maybe she heard something wrong.

Since 401Ks are capped in the amount you can put into every year.

but all this speculation is not helping him.

He needs to throw all the cards on the table and take his beatings at one time and be done. What he is doing is much worse, nothing like mystery and uncertainty to really make hime look worse to the public.

Unless he broke IRS laws and disclosure puts him into a situation of criminal liability.

I'm sure there's nothing criminal about it. Dishonest in terms of stretching the law to its limits, yes, criminal, not likely.
Embarrassing? You betcha.

Posted by Mercor on 08-15-12 08:09 PM:

He may have put in after tax funds into his Roth

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 08:11 PM:

Quote from Mercor:

He may have put in after tax funds into his Roth

its not a roth and besides that is limited too.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by noob_trad3r on 08-15-12 08:20 PM:

Quote from trefoil:

I'm sure there's nothing criminal about it. Dishonest in terms of stretching the law to its limits, yes, criminal, not likely.
Embarrassing? You betcha.

But if that is the case, then just release them. Not like no one is going to be surprised that he pays no taxes or maybe 15% at best.

The whole "I wont release" just adds too much mystery/suspicion/uncertainty and that is worse.

Unless what he has is so bad that (or illegal) that he would rather not win the election VS releasing the returns.

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 08-15-12 08:21 PM:

Do you honestly not believe the IRS has been over this with a fine tooth comb?

I'm fully expecting a "leak" in October saying Romney has an IRS problem. That's how Obama "won" his Senate seat over two vastly more qualified candidates.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 08:21 PM:

there is only one way it was possible. he found a way to get a valuable asset valued at next to nothing and then stuck it in his ira. when the true value was recognized, shazam,103 million into an ira tax free.

the only good thing is that since its not a roth he will eventually have to withdraw it and pay tax at age 70 unless he can get the law changed or find some loophole before he turns 70. any bets on that one?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by noob_trad3r on 08-15-12 08:24 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Do you honestly not believe the IRS has been over this with a fine tooth comb?

I'm fully expecting a "leak" in October saying Romney has an IRS problem. That's how Obama "won" his Senate seat over two vastly more qualified candidates.

Just like the SEC went through Madoff's Ponzi with a fine tooth comb. OR MF global or PFG

Yeah do you really trust the government to do a bang up job.

Now public scrutiny could shine a light on his returns that would bring the attention of higher senior level IRS folks to look over his returns with a fine tooth comb. And that could be problematic.

Posted by Crispy on 08-15-12 08:25 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

romneys ira is something like 103 million. not possible with out going into grey areas of the law.

Executives can amass a fortune in their 401k.s

401ks can be legally converted to IRAs.

You are not only wrong, but ought to be embarrassed posting such drivel on an investment site before fact checking.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 08:29 PM:

Quote from Crispy:

Executives can amass a fortune in their 401k.s

401ks can be legally converted to IRAs.

You are not only wrong, but ought to be embarrassed posting on an investment site before fact checking.

it wasnt a conversion and besides they are limited too. geeze. is there some kind of mind numbing substance in the water around here?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 08-15-12 08:32 PM:

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Just like the SEC went through Madoff's Ponzi with a fine tooth comb. OR MF global or PFG

Yeah do you really trust the government to do a bang up job.

Now public scrutiny could shine a light on his returns that would bring the attention of higher senior level IRS folks to look over his returns with a fine tooth comb. And that could be problematic.

I have little coinfidence in government, but I have a high level of confidence that obama and the crowd of chicago gangsters running his campaign have had the IRS put a microscope on Romney's returns.

Posted by CaptainObvious on 08-15-12 08:55 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I have little coinfidence in government, but I have a high level of confidence that obama and the crowd of chicago gangsters running his campaign have had the IRS put a microscope on Romney's returns.

As House Honky Joe would say, word. There's not any real dirt cause if there was they would air it right now. It would bury Romney with no chance of recovery. Last minute dirt is something unveiled because you believe given enough time your opponent can recover. Tax evasion/fraud ain't in that category, unless you're in congress.

Posted by Ricter on 08-15-12 09:00 PM:

He's not hiding dirt, as you're right, the IRS would have corrected that issue.

He's hiding that he's paid less than 15% in previous years. Revealing that he paid 15% in all years is a ho-hum to the public, since they've seen it for two years of his returns already. But less than 15%, particularly if it's much less, is news and renews the controversy. That's why he's hiding.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-15-12 09:05 PM:

Quote from Ricter:

He's not hiding dirt, as you're right, the IRS would have corrected that issue.

He's hiding that he's paid less than 15% in previous years. Revealing that he paid 15% in all years is a ho-hum to the public, since they've seen it for two years of his returns already. But less than 15%, particularly if it's much less, is news and renews the controversy. That's why he's hiding.

i agree with that. nothing illegal. the super rich dont have to do illegal things. they buy the result they want.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Tom B on 08-15-12 09:08 PM:

Quote from Crispy:

Executives can amass a fortune in their 401k.s

401ks can be legally converted to IRAs.

You are not only wrong, but ought to be embarrassed posting such drivel on an investment site before fact checking.

+1

Also, he probably has a self-directed IRA which allows for a lot of different investments including real estate and business interests.

http://www.selfdirectedira.org/

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-15-12 10:07 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

there is only one way it was possible. he found a way to get a valuable asset valued at next to nothing and then stuck it in his ira. when the true value was recognized, shazam,103 million into an ira tax free.

the only good thing is that since its not a roth he will eventually have to withdraw it and pay tax at age 70 unless he can get the law changed or find some loophole before he turns 70. any bets on that one?

For a guy who fancies himself as a big "critical thinker" you sure dont bother to use your brain very much.

If you would have done the slightest amount of research you would have been able to figure out that under Romney's leadership Bain was averaging a 113% per year return for 14 years.

If Romney was to start with 10k in his IRA and it was all invested in Bain, and he added an average of 2000 per year, in 14 years he would have 550 million dollars.

Now keep in mind that he left his money at Bain even when he was no longer running Bain, all in all he could have had his money invested at Bain for 27 years.

It is incredibly easy how you get to an astronomical sum in an IRA simply because BAIN was so successful.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-15-12 10:23 PM:

Quote from noob_trad3r:

Yeah do you really trust the government to do a bang up job.

The majority of those demanding his returns think exactly that.
A contradiction in that you would think they trusted that same government (IRS) to have already found any improprieties.

Posted by MarketMasher on 08-15-12 11:01 PM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

under Romney's leadership Bain was averaging a 113% per year return for 14 years.

No way.....

Romney has light years more business experience than Obama - but 113% for 14 yrs???

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/0...r-wrong-reason/

"No, they did not (as claimed) return 113% per year. In fact, their investment performance, according to their own data, was rather unremarkable."

"Let’s start with that silly 113% per year: Thats a more than doubling each year, and it would have turned $1.1 billion into $9 trillion over the same time period."

Posted by Spike Trader on 08-15-12 11:16 PM:

Quote from MarketMasher:

No way.....

Romney has light years more business experience than Obama - but 113% for 14 yrs???

"No, they did not (as claimed) return 113% per year. In fact, their investment performance, according to their own data, was rather unremarkable."

"Let’s start with that silly 113% per year: Thats a more than doubling each year, and it would have turned $1.1 billion into $9 trillion over the same time period."

Well Maxi . . . . shouldn't you be retracting that comment you made to Free Thinker ?
I wish you would.

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-15-12 11:20 PM:

Quote from MarketMasher:

No way.....

Romney has light years more business experience than Obama - but 113% for 14 yrs???

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/0...r-wrong-reason/

"No, they did not (as claimed) return 113% per year. In fact, their investment performance, according to their own data, was rather unremarkable."

"Let’s start with that silly 113% per year: Thats a more than doubling each year, and it would have turned $1.1 billion into $9 trillion over the same time period."

There is a discrepancy somewhere between what Bain averaged and what it was returning to its clients, your article doesnt explain that, and i highly doubt that Bain and company were charging fees to themselves on the money they had invested. This is from the Wallstreet journal.

Even at the lower number of 50-80% from their analysis, if Romney left his money at Bain getting those kinds of returns in an IRA for 20 years its not hard to figure out how he spun it up to 100 million.

Even if Bain did between 50-80% if you were to take 10k stick it in an IRA for 20 years at an average return of 55% and add 2000 per year to the IRA you end up with 100 million.

Anyway you want to slice the numbers its not hard to figure out how he could have spun an IRA into 100 million using Bains returns.

Mitt Romney's political foes are stepping up attacks based on his time running investment firm Bain Capital, tagging him with making a fortune from the rougher side of American capitalism—even as Mr. Romney says his Bain tenure shows he knows how to build businesses.

Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains.

Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.

Enlarge Image

A spokesman for Bain Capital said its "success rate in growing and turning around businesses in both strong and weak economic periods is very high…" The company called the Journal's analysis "inaccurate and misleading" and said it unfairly put the onus on Bain for events at companies after it no longer owned them.

Seeking the protection of a bankruptcy court isn't necessarily a sign of long-term business failure. Many of the Bain companies emerged from reorganization healthier, just as, for instance, General Motors GM -0.35% did a few years ago. But while bankruptcy filings aren't a perfect measure of performance, they provide a way to assess a disparate array of target businesses that in many cases weren't required to make public financial filings.

The Journal's findings could provide fodder for both critics and supporters of Mr. Romney's presidential ambitions and of his role at Bain. Some experts, while conceding that available studies don't provide a direct comparison, said the rate at which the firms Bain invested in ran into trouble appears to be higher than experienced by some rival buyout firms during the era.

Romney's GOP rivals attacked the front-runner's conservatism, strength as a candidate and business record in a final debate before New Hampshire's primary. Patrick O'Connor has details on Campaign Journal.

That notion could undermine a central thrust of Mr. Romney's campaign message: that his private-sector experience building companies makes him the best candidate to turn around the ailing U.S. economy.

The numbers, however, also reflect Bain's investing style, which, particularly during the firm's early years, was focused on smaller and sometimes troubled companies that Bain hoped to fix or build.

Bain was investing in "riskier deals," said Steven N. Kaplan, a finance professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "For every one that went bankrupt, they had one that was a screaming success. The overall effect was terrific performance" for the firm's investors.

The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50% to 80% annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0713493694.html

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 12:01 AM:

Quote from MarketMasher:

No way.....

Romney has light years more business experience than Obama - but 113% for 14 yrs???

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/0...r-wrong-reason/

"No, they did not (as claimed) return 113% per year. In fact, their investment performance, according to their own data, was rather unremarkable."

"Let’s start with that silly 113% per year: Thats a more than doubling each year, and it would have turned $1.1 billion into $9 trillion over the same time period."

Well, I don't know anything about this author but the comment about how private equity calculates their IRR seems intentionally misleading. IRR is used as a standard for all types of returns on capital, and the only way it would be calculated (or really just applied) differently would depend on the complexity of the investment or potential investment. It can't be calculated differently as that wouldn't be the IRR, is my point. Also the total return from 1.1B to 2.5B or whatever might assume that all annual earnings were reinvested, we don't know that is the case.

Anyway, here is an article based on an actual Bain prospectus from 2000, about all of Romney's career there. Pg 19 or 20 begins listing the investments themselves, you can enlarge on the top right and there are notes on the lower right. According to this Bain averaged an IRR of 88% per year AND some were still open positions.. so to speak. The realized per year IRR was 173%. These are gross numbers before fees and Bain's cut etc. regardless Bain under Romney appears to have an outstanding record.

I would say that this supports Max, reinforces that Romney did it all legit, and should open the doubter's eyes to the POSSIBILITY.

http://documents.latimes.com/bain-capital-investments/

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 08-16-12 12:11 AM:

I don't see the point of nitpicking the returns Bain made under romney. The fact that he was a management consultant, then ran a successful PE firm puts him light years ahead of Obama and the dolt Biden. I doubt Obama or Biden can read a balance sheet or explain compound interest.

Posted by mrbill on 08-16-12 12:12 AM:

Probably already mentioned, but perhaps the Amnesty allowed a few years ago for those with Swiss and other foreign bank accounts. But, again, who cares? Just nuts to no release his taxes.

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 12:18 AM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't see the point of nitpicking the returns Bain made under romney. The fact that he was a management consultant, then ran a successful PE firm puts him light years ahead of Obama and the dolt Biden. I doubt Obama or Biden can read a balance sheet or explain compound interest.

We were only pointing out the returns because Free Thinker and his buddies down at MSNBC automatically assume that Romney did something sinister to get 100 million into an IRA just because they are incapable of doing it, when it is very easily doable using Bain's returns.

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 12:20 AM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't see the point of nitpicking the returns Bain made under romney. The fact that he was a management consultant, then ran a successful PE firm puts him light years ahead of Obama and the dolt Biden. I doubt Obama or Biden can read a balance sheet or explain compound interest.

AAA, this thread is about the value of his IRA, which some (free thinker) are calling impossible.. that is the point of the nitpicking. Not that your point isn't completely accurate.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 12:31 AM:

We won't know how Romney got 100+ mil in his IRA, because it's a secret.

Why is Mitt hiding his tax return information from the tax paying public ?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by mrbill on 08-16-12 12:36 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

We won't know how Romney got 100+ mil in his IRA, because it's a secret.

Why is Mitt hiding his tax return information from the tax paying public ?

Even his own team are wondering wtf is he doing? This could be the easiest way for Obama to win. Who cares if he paid the proper taxes, however low they are? I sure don't. Let them out now, give the voters some time to see if they really care.

Romney is his own worst enemy on this one. Pathetic.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-16-12 12:53 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

AAA, this thread is about the value of his IRA, which some (free thinker) are calling impossible.. that is the point of the nitpicking. Not that your point isn't completely accurate.

i never said it was impossible in fact i laid out how he did it. i also never said it was illegal. i said it was a grey area of the law.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 01:04 AM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

i never said it was impossible in fact i laid out how he did it. i also never said it was illegal. i said it was a grey area of the law.

You said on pg 1 that it was impossible without going into grey areas of the law. You also laid out (lol) how YOU think he did it. MAx told you how it was possible just using Bain's returns + the small annual contributions, i just gave you a prospectus, it is certainly possible that he did it in a totally legal and legitimate way according to those returns. And that was 12 years ago.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 01:06 AM:

Not releasing his returns will cost him some votes. Romney obviously thinks it won't cost as many votes as releasing them would.
The only ones this affects are independent voters in swing states anyway. For the rest of us it's just something to talk about.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 01:09 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Not releasing his returns will cost him some votes. Romney obviously thinks it won't cost as many votes as releasing them would.
The only ones this affects are independent voters in swing states anyway. For the rest of us it's just something to talk about.

The only people who care are on the far left, I dont think Romney was banking on the "Occupy Wallstreet" vote to win.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 01:11 AM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

The only people who care are on the far left, I dont think Romney was banking on the "Occupy Wallstreet" vote to win.

You are consistently dense max.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-16-12 01:12 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

You said on pg 1 that it was impossible without going into grey areas of the law. You also laid out (lol) how YOU think he did it. MAx told you how it was possible just using Bain's returns + the small annual contributions, i just gave you a prospectus, it is certainly possible that he did it in a totally legal and legitimate way according to those returns. And that was 12 years ago.

max? i dont see him. he is on ignore. i dont converse with bloody tampons who are also idiots.
want to make a small bet that i am right if romney ever comes clean?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 01:36 AM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

max? i dont see him. he is on ignore. i dont converse with bloody tampons who are also idiots.
want to make a small bet that i am right if romney ever comes clean?

I'll think about it, but it needs to be established fact.. not some opinion piece from huffington post. And just to be clear, you are saying that he placed an artificially deflated asset into his IRA which afterwords was valued at a much higher price?

Also, lets say he did that, but it only accounts for a small % of the total value of the IRA, is that a push? This could get complicated in like a thousand ways, like.. what if the asset was just low priced (compared to now) like gold or something and then exploded after it was already in his IRA? There would be nothing even arguably wrong/immoral/unethical/illegal about that, but would you still win?

So what are the terms you want, and what would we be betting?

oh, and as an aside, I was simply saying that according to the only actual evidence presented in this thread (by Max, and me) that it is definitely possible that Romney's IRA is completely legal and ethical. Of course i don't know for sure but neither does anyone else on here.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-16-12 01:42 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Why is Mitt hiding his tax return information from the tax paying public ?

It wasn't that long ago people were asking why Barrack Hussein Obama was hiding his birth certificate and many are still wondering why he's hiding his college transcripts from the public.

Posted by trefoil on 08-16-12 02:30 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

I'll think about it, but it needs to be established fact.. not some opinion piece from huffington post. And just to be clear, you are saying that he placed an artificially deflated asset into his IRA which afterwords was valued at a much higher price?

Also, lets say he did that, but it only accounts for a small % of the total value of the IRA, is that a push? This could get complicated in like a thousand ways, like.. what if the asset was just low priced (compared to now) like gold or something and then exploded after it was already in his IRA? There would be nothing even arguably wrong/immoral/unethical/illegal about that, but would you still win?

So what are the terms you want, and what would we be betting?

oh, and as an aside, I was simply saying that according to the only actual evidence presented in this thread (by Max, and me) that it is definitely possible that Romney's IRA is completely legal and ethical. Of course i don't know for sure but neither does anyone else on here.

I assume you know what this means (from the Ritholz arty above):

Let’s start with the WSJ article. Among its key findings:

• $1.1 billion invested generated $2.4 billion in gains for its investors over 16 years;
• 22% of the companies either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors;
• An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that Bain lost 100% of client money invested in each deal;
• Bain’s returns came from just a small number of investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the total dollar gains. (4 of the 10 of these businesses later ended up in bankruptcy court).
• Several of Bain’s biggest successes became household names: Staples, Domino’s Pizza Inc. and Sports Authority.

The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.4 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. This is before fees, which typically run in the range of 2% annually plus 20% of profits (widely known as “2+20”); Some newer Bain funds run 1 & 30, while some older funds ran 1.5 + 20.

If not, let me make it real simple: if you wanted to generate 2.40 for every 1.10 invested, over 16 years, your rate of return would only have to be 5.6%.
Now, we know the 1.1 bil wasn't all invested upfront, which is why someone has to sit there and do the work of analyzing the ins and outs. And when the WSJ got done, as the Ritholz article shows, the returns were very much to the south of 88%. The only way you get returns that are in excess of the bull market in force at the time using the returns Bain actually made, which were, once again, far less than 88% overall, as they showed, is through leverage.
Leverage isn't available, except in a very limited way, in IRAs and 401k's. So it's far more likely that without any weird shit, Mitt would have made market returns or, if he was really really good, maybe a bit more.
Now, I have known two people who made large sums in their retirement accounts. What they did was to put 100% of their money into their own company's stock when it was teetering on bankruptcy. It didn't actually go bankrupt, so they wound up making 30:1 returns on their money.
That's the only way I know of to turn the kind of money you can contribute to an IRA, SEP-IRA, 401(k), or any other defined contribution retirement account you can name, into the kind of serious money we're talking about here.
So yes, he did artificially deflate the value of the assets he placed in his accounts, and having done that, he was able to make the kind of money that allowed it to grow to 103 million dollars. If you know math and you know investing, there is no other way.
Anything else is bullshit. Pure, unrefined, probably Texas, bullshit.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-16-12 02:30 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

I'll think about it, but it needs to be established fact.. not some opinion piece from huffington post. And just to be clear, you are saying that he placed an artificially deflated asset into his IRA which afterwords was valued at a much higher price?

Also, lets say he did that, but it only accounts for a small % of the total value of the IRA, is that a push? This could get complicated in like a thousand ways, like.. what if the asset was just low priced (compared to now) like gold or something and then exploded after it was already in his IRA? There would be nothing even arguably wrong/immoral/unethical/illegal about that, but would you still win?

So what are the terms you want, and what would we be betting?

oh, and as an aside, I was simply saying that according to the only actual evidence presented in this thread (by Max, and me) that it is definitely possible that Romney's IRA is completely legal and ethical. Of course i don't know for sure but neither does anyone else on here.

ok. lets just mark this post and come back to it for bragging rights if romney ever comes clean.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 02:34 AM:

Very dumb post.

I have always wondered what the hell people are doing on this site if they dont think that you can get better returns than the market averages..... If you dont think it is possible to beat the market averages you have no business attempting to be a trader, you may as well just stick your money in an index fund.

Quote from trefoil:

once again, far less than 88% overall, as they showed, is through leverage.
Leverage isn't available, except in a very limited way, in IRAs and 401k's. So it's far more likely that without any weird shit, Mitt would have made market returns or, if he was really really good, maybe a bit more.
Now, I have known two people who made large sums in their retirement accounts. What they did was to put 100% of their money into their own company's stock when it was teetering on bankruptcy. It didn't actually go bankrupt, so they wound up making 30:1 returns on their money.
That's the only way I know of to turn the kind of money you can contribute to an IRA, SEP-IRA, 401(k), or any other defined contribution retirement account you can name, into the kind of serious money we're talking about here.
[/B]

Posted by tradingjournals on 08-16-12 02:42 AM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I have always wondered what the hell people are doing on this site if they dont think that you can get better returns than the market averages.....

I would not be surprised if some readers have asked something like " What the hell are you doing on this site then?"

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 02:54 AM:

Quote from Lucrum:

It wasn't that long ago people were asking why Barrack Hussein Obama was hiding his birth certificate and many are still wondering why he's hiding his college transcripts from the public.

Quote from bigarrow:

Why is Mitt hiding his tax return information from the tax paying public ?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 02:55 AM:

Quote from tradingjournals:

I would not be surprised if some readers have asked something like " What the hell are you doing on this site then?"

LOL, hows that 100$ trading account treating you? You rich yet?

Your trading account is a rounding error to most people.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 03:05 AM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

it wasnt a conversion and besides they are limited too. geeze. is there some kind of mind numbing substance in the water around here?

Sorry dude but there is NO LIMIT on the conversion of a 401k to Ira.

That's how I got my IRA up to over 1 million. Defined benefit plan converted to Ira all in one step.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 03:16 AM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

i never said it was impossible in fact i laid out how he did it. i also never said it was illegal. i said it was a grey area of the law.

Once again you PROVE you know jack shit about qualified plans.
As a business owner you can put in way more money than a traditional 401k.
It's possible to contribute 100% of gross income in one year.

I myself put in $90,000 one year so all I ended up paying was the max on social security ,medicare: my federal taxable income was like 5-$6000 by the time I finished my business deductions and the deduction for the contribution to my 412i.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 03:23 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's how I got my IRA up to over 1 million. Defined benefit plan converted to Ira all in one step.

Nice work getting a million into an IRA I have been trying to pay more attention to mine cause i realize just how big the numbers can get when compoounded without taxes, but im still young, so mine is still tiny, and every time i see a good trading opportunity im much more concerned about getting the trade on in my prop accounts, for ten times the size, and i always end up hating myself later for missing good opportunities.....

Probably something im going to be kicking myself for down the road.....

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 03:25 AM:

Quote from trefoil:

I assume you know what this means (from the Ritholz arty above):

If not, let me make it real simple: if you wanted to generate 2.40 for every 1.10 invested, over 16 years, your rate of return would only have to be 5.6%.
Now, we know the 1.1 bil wasn't all invested upfront, which is why someone has to sit there and do the work of analyzing the ins and outs. And when the WSJ got done, as the Ritholz article shows, the returns were very much to the south of 88%. The only way you get returns that are in excess of the bull market in force at the time using the returns Bain actually made, which were, once again, far less than 88% overall, as they showed, is through leverage.
Leverage isn't available, except in a very limited way, in IRAs and 401k's. So it's far more likely that without any weird shit, Mitt would have made market returns or, if he was really really good, maybe a bit more.
Now, I have known two people who made large sums in their retirement accounts. What they did was to put 100% of their money into their own company's stock when it was teetering on bankruptcy. It didn't actually go bankrupt, so they wound up making 30:1 returns on their money.
That's the only way I know of to turn the kind of money you can contribute to an IRA, SEP-IRA, 401(k), or any other defined contribution retirement account you can name, into the kind of serious money we're talking about here.
So yes, he did artificially deflate the value of the assets he placed in his accounts, and having done that, he was able to make the kind of money that allowed it to grow to 103 million dollars. If you know math and you know investing, there is no other way.
Anything else is bullshit. Pure, unrefined, probably Texas, bullshit. [/B]

You are full of shit I can get around 1600% leverage if I wanted to in my IRA. I certainly don't advise it but leverage and margin are NOT the same animals.

margin (ie stock, selling short etc)is not allowed in a qualified plan

leverage is allowed (futures , options on futures ,) the only difference is during regular trading hours in a qualified plan you are limited to overnight margin requirements for initiation and maintenance.
so depends on the contract how much leverage you can use and officially you have used "no margin"

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 03:40 AM:

Self-directed IRA’s have garnered a significant amount of buzz as it was recently made known that republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been using cash from his retirement account to invest in untraditional lucrative investments. It was reported that Romney co-invested in Bain Capital using funds from his SEP IRA. Interestingly Bain educated their employees on how they could use cash from their IRA to invest in take-over deals. As a result, Bain employees garnered 50%-80% return on investment per year.

Romney has been using a pre-tax IRA, which will require him to pay income tax on a percentage of his IRA distributions each year. In the past, Romney was unable to invest in a post-tax or Roth IRA because of his high income tax bracket. The tax laws have now changed and since 2010, anyone has the ability to open and convert to a Roth IRA

http://www.selfdirectedirasforlife....ublic-interest/

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 03:43 AM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

Nice work getting a million into an IRA I have been trying to pay more attention to mine cause i realize just how big the numbers can get when compoounded without taxes, but im still young, so mine is still tiny, and every time i see a good trading opportunity im much more concerned about getting the trade on in my prop accounts, for ten times the size, and i always end up hating myself later for missing good opportunities.....

Probably something im going to be kicking myself for down the road.....

yeah but it kinda sucks to know it all comes out as "income ".

If you are willing to take the risk, you can use 45% leverage in a taxable account , make up for the taxes incurred with the leverage plus have the freedom to short.

That's why I'm going to take out a portion of my IRA , put it in a taxable account, trade as a business with mark to market accounting, utilize the leverage in 2-3 yrs and ability to short.

The advantages are ability to use leverage can completely nullify tax hit, if you have losses as a a mark to market business all of it is deductible plus business expenses are deductible like a normal business expense (vs the lame deduction as an "investor")

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 03:59 AM:

I had a tough time in 2009,(first bad year) and saw traders drop like flies in that period, so i was always worried this business would no longer work for me, or that i would blow out. So I bought 2 houses, one cash, mostly cash on the other, owe about 100k, and thats just my insurance policy should the trading business go south.

Thanks for the advice, im ready to start leveraging it hard again knowing I have my own "golden parachute" in the case i got to hit the reset button and start from scratch again.

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

yeah but it kinda sucks to know it all comes out as "income ".

If you are willing to take the risk, you can use 45% leverage in a taxable account , make up for the taxes incurred with the leverage plus have the freedom to short.

That's why I'm going to take out a portion of my IRA , put it in a taxable account, trade as a business with mark to market accounting, utilize the leverage in 2-3 yrs and ability to short.

The advantages are ability to use leverage can completely nullify tax hit, if you have losses as a a mark to market business all of it is deductible plus business expenses are deductible like a normal(vs the lame deduction as an "investor")

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 04:12 AM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I had a tough time in 2009,(first bad year) and saw traders drop like flies in that period, so i was always worried this business would no longer work for me, or that i would blow out. So I bought 2 houses, one cash, mostly cash on the other, owe about 100k, and thats just my insurance policy should the trading business go south.

Thanks for the advice, im ready to start leveraging it hard again knowing I have my own "golden parachute" in the case i got to hit the reset button and start from scratch again.

Just be aware that 45% constant leverage is a huge risk.

The formula for nullifying tax rate with margin is roughly the reciprocal of (1-your marginal tax rate).

So a marginal tax rate of say 28% = 1/.72 = (139% of equity) will allow your gains to make up for the tax hit.

If you lose, the leverage will eviscerate you: I suggest a bit of moderation.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 04:23 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Just be aware that 45% constant leverage is a huge risk.

The formula for nullifying tax rate with margin is roughly the reciprocal of (1-your marginal tax rate).

So a marginal tax rate of say 28% = 1/.72 = (139% of equity) will allow your gains to make up for the tax hit.

If you lose, the leverage will eviscerate you: I suggest a bit of moderation.

I know the risks of leverage, I have been trading on 50-1 leverage on my prop accounts for years, though i rarely, (1-2 times per year) use it. Mostly its just for floating orders. On an average day im sitting at 10:1 fully hedged, over a dozen different positions.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 04:34 AM:

Quote from Max E. Pad:

I know the risks of leverage, I have been trading on 50-1 leverage on my prop accounts for years, though i rarely, (1-2 times per year) use it. Mostly its just for floating orders. On an average day im sitting at 10:1 fully hedged, over a dozen different positions.

Glad to hear it.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 04:44 AM:

Quote from trefoil:

I assume you know what this means (from the Ritholz arty above):

If not, let me make it real simple: if you wanted to generate 2.40 for every 1.10 invested, over 16 years, your rate of return would only have to be 5.6%.
Now, we know the 1.1 bil wasn't all invested upfront, which is why someone has to sit there and do the work of analyzing the ins and outs. And when the WSJ got done, as the Ritholz article shows, the returns were very much to the south of 88%. The only way you get returns that are in excess of the bull market in force at the time using the returns Bain actually made, which were, once again, far less than 88% overall, as they showed, is through leverage.
Leverage isn't available, except in a very limited way, in IRAs and 401k's. So it's far more likely that without any weird shit, Mitt would have made market returns or, if he was really really good, maybe a bit more.
Now, I have known two people who made large sums in their retirement accounts. What they did was to put 100% of their money into their own company's stock when it was teetering on bankruptcy. It didn't actually go bankrupt, so they wound up making 30:1 returns on their money.
That's the only way I know of to turn the kind of money you can contribute to an IRA, SEP-IRA, 401(k), or any other defined contribution retirement account you can name, into the kind of serious money we're talking about here.
So yes, he did artificially deflate the value of the assets he placed in his accounts, and having done that, he was able to make the kind of money that allowed it to grow to 103 million dollars. If you know math and you know investing, there is no other way.
Anything else is bullshit. Pure, unrefined, probably Texas, bullshit. [/B]

You are making assumptions to support your PURE FANTASY that Romney placed somehow artificially deflated assets into his IRA. here is some stuff for you to consider.

1) No one has posted and we haven't seen the actual 'ins' and 'outs' at Bain during this time, we don't KNOW the actual annual rate of return.

2) you are judging only these 16 years.. that was over 12 fucking years ago.

3) assuming he started his IRA year 1 at Bain (it could have been earlier), and contributed ONLY 2k/ beginning of the year for the last 28 years he needed to avg 41%/year compounded to break $100m.. less than half the 88%.

4) The above obviously doesn't include any rollover he might have had, when we know he had access to a self-directed 401k at Bain. It also doesn't include the larger contributions that were allowed to the IRA later. These alone could have made a significant difference in the avg compounded rate required afterwards to achieve 100m. http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...lf-directed-ira

5) You have no idea what he is invested in now or then, if he had a huge couple of years early on, or what he rolled over from Bain. there are many realistic possibilities even under the 41%.

6) We don't know the exact value of his IRA, it could be less than 100m.

conclusion: he could have broke 100m in any number of ways, and NONE of them had to be placing artificially deflated assets into his IRA (however that's possible anyway).

side note: you are possibly the most annoyingly condescending poster on the board. I find your supreme arrogance on all subjects, especially investing, fucking ridiculous when this is how you claim to trade: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...k&pagenumber=11

quit posting like a douche bro.. or be right.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 05:02 AM:

The astounding stupidity and incompetence of the liberals on this thread let us know their stupidity is not just limited to the political spectrum as if it were "just a matter of opinions".

They are biased and ill informed, worst yet they have no clue how clueless they are.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by futurecurrents on 08-16-12 05:25 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

You are making assumptions to support your PURE FANTASY that Romney placed somehow artificially deflated assets into his IRA. here is some stuff for you to consider.

1) No one has posted and we haven't seen the actual 'ins' and 'outs' at Bain during this time, we don't KNOW the actual annual rate of return.

2) you are judging only these 16 years.. that was over 12 fucking years ago.

3) assuming he started his IRA year 1 at Bain (it could have been earlier), and contributed ONLY 2k/ beginning of the year for the last 28 years he needed to avg 41%/year compounded to break $100m.. less than half the 88%.

4) The above obviously doesn't include any rollover he might have had, when we know he had access to a self-directed 401k at Bain. It also doesn't include the larger contributions that were allowed to the IRA later. These alone could have made a significant difference in the avg compounded rate required afterwards to achieve 100m. http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...lf-directed-ira

5) You have no idea what he is invested in now or then, if he had a huge couple of years early on, or what he rolled over from Bain. there are many realistic possibilities even under the 41%.

6) We don't know the exact value of his IRA, it could be less than 100m.

conclusion: he could have broke 100m in any number of ways, and NONE of them had to be placing artificially deflated assets into his IRA (however that's possible anyway).

side note: you are possibly the most annoyingly condescending poster on the board. I find your supreme arrogance on all subjects, especially investing, fucking ridiculous when this is how you claim to trade: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...k&pagenumber=11

quit posting like a douche bro.. or be right.

How can you even begin to understand his trading methodology since you can't even understand man-made global warming, or for that matter even present a coherent argument.

Your words......from the thread you referenced.

" I don't see the proof.
If you are so educated then u would understand that 200 years of data is statistically irrelevant when compared to the total population. So no i don't give a shit that CO2, which hasn't been proven to LEAD temp, has gone up 40% in the last 200 years because we don't know what the historical norm is."

200 years..total population ? WTF ?

CO2 hasn't been proven to lead temps ?.......... CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas!

Don't know what the historical norm is? ......Yes we do!

So within this one small paragraph you managed to be non-sensical or wrong about GW three times, yet you feel qualified mock his methodology. Which along with GW, you also know next to nothing about.

Pretty funny.

__________________

The future chaos is determined by the current chaos, in a chaotic manner.

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 10:42 AM:

+1, great post.

Quote from PiggyBank:

You are making assumptions to support your PURE FANTASY that Romney placed somehow artificially deflated assets into his IRA. here is some stuff for you to consider.

1) No one has posted and we haven't seen the actual 'ins' and 'outs' at Bain during this time, we don't KNOW the actual annual rate of return.

2) you are judging only these 16 years.. that was over 12 fucking years ago.

3) assuming he started his IRA year 1 at Bain (it could have been earlier), and contributed ONLY 2k/ beginning of the year for the last 28 years he needed to avg 41%/year compounded to break $100m.. less than half the 88%.

4) The above obviously doesn't include any rollover he might have had, when we know he had access to a self-directed 401k at Bain. It also doesn't include the larger contributions that were allowed to the IRA later. These alone could have made a significant difference in the avg compounded rate required afterwards to achieve 100m. http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...lf-directed-ira

5) You have no idea what he is invested in now or then, if he had a huge couple of years early on, or what he rolled over from Bain. there are many realistic possibilities even under the 41%.

6) We don't know the exact value of his IRA, it could be less than 100m.

conclusion: he could have broke 100m in any number of ways, and NONE of them had to be placing artificially deflated assets into his IRA (however that's possible anyway).

side note: you are possibly the most annoyingly condescending poster on the board. I find your supreme arrogance on all subjects, especially investing, fucking ridiculous when this is how you claim to trade: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...k&pagenumber=11

quit posting like a douche bro.. or be right.

Posted by trefoil on 08-16-12 06:11 PM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

You are making assumptions to support your PURE FANTASY that Romney placed somehow artificially deflated assets into his IRA. here is some stuff for you to consider.

1) No one has posted and we haven't seen the actual 'ins' and 'outs' at Bain during this time, we don't KNOW the actual annual rate of return.

2) you are judging only these 16 years.. that was over 12 fucking years ago.

3) assuming he started his IRA year 1 at Bain (it could have been earlier), and contributed ONLY 2k/ beginning of the year for the last 28 years he needed to avg 41%/year compounded to break $100m.. less than half the 88%.

4) The above obviously doesn't include any rollover he might have had, when we know he had access to a self-directed 401k at Bain. It also doesn't include the larger contributions that were allowed to the IRA later. These alone could have made a significant difference in the avg compounded rate required afterwards to achieve 100m. http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...lf-directed-ira

5) You have no idea what he is invested in now or then, if he had a huge couple of years early on, or what he rolled over from Bain. there are many realistic possibilities even under the 41%.

6) We don't know the exact value of his IRA, it could be less than 100m.

conclusion: he could have broke 100m in any number of ways, and NONE of them had to be placing artificially deflated assets into his IRA (however that's possible anyway).

side note: you are possibly the most annoyingly condescending poster on the board. I find your supreme arrogance on all subjects, especially investing, fucking ridiculous when this is how you claim to trade: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...k&pagenumber=11

quit posting like a douche bro.. or be right.

There is NO evidence for greater than market returns, sans leverage, from independent sources who have looked, over at Bain. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible, no matter about rollovers (which are supremely and utterly irrelevant to the math) to get to 103 mil by the guy who actually ran the place during the time analyzed, who has publicly shown therefore, that without leverage he can't generate greater than market returns, unless something else was done to juice the returns. That was the point of the post, which apparently you missed.
As for the condescending part, eh whatevs. I have had death wished upon me three times, so far, by you right wing fanatics. If condescension is what I'm giving back, I think that shows restraint.

Posted by Max E. Pad on 08-16-12 06:14 PM:

What you just said is the complete opposite of reality, there is ALL KINDS OF SOURCES that will confirm Bain had huge market returns. It never ceases to amaze me that someone can be so blinded by hatred that they are willing to completely dismiss the facts, and then make a fool of themselves.

Quote from trefoil:

There is NO evidence for greater than market returns, sans leverage, from independent sources who have looked, over at Bain.

Posted by CaptainObvious on 08-16-12 07:43 PM:

Romney reviews taxes. Never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years. Calls Reid out. Basicly says Reid is a liar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romne...-173623625.html

Posted by Ricter on 08-16-12 07:47 PM:

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Romney reviews taxes. Never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years. Calls Reid out. Basicly says Reid is a liar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romne...-173623625.html

Fox to Farmer: "I didn't, erp, eat them chickens!"

Posted by hughb on 08-16-12 07:59 PM:

So I paid taxes every single year," Romney said. "Harry Reid's charge is totally false. I'm sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him. I don't believe it for a minute, by the way."

This is what I've been waiting for Romney to say. Supposedly, Reid has seen the tax returns provided by a Bain insider. If not, why did Reid make the statement that Romney had not paid taxes? Reid got that information from somewhere, and it had to be someone he trusted.

If there was something that could be contrued as illegal in Romney's returns, the IRS would have contacted him by now in the course of their investigation and we would know about it. So I don't think there's any legal problems with the returns.

Romney says he reviewed his last ten years of taxes and discloses the percentage he's paid. There's no reason for him to not release them and get this over with. He's got a good chance of winning this election, and if you review elections historically, candidates lose because of missteps taken during their campaigns. Romney's biggest weakness right now is being portrayed as a corporate villain. He can reduce that weakness by releasing his returns.

Posted by hughb on 08-16-12 08:13 PM:

This is starting to look like a ruse by a Romney campaign operative. Harry Reid would not be stupid enough to make such a brash statment unless he thought he had seen Romney's returns. Could they have been false returns designed to get Reid to do exactly what he did?

Either that I have overestimated Reid's intelligence.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 08:55 PM:

Romney is playing the politicians game. This could be one of three things. Romney is thinking the information in the tax returns will cost him votes. Or he is playing the Obama team and will release the returns at a time he thinks will help him the most. Or third he just don't know what to do.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-16-12 09:01 PM:

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Romney....Basically says Reid is a liar.

Isn't he?

Quote from hughb:

...Harry Reid would not be stupid enough to make such a brash statement...

What makes you say that?

Posted by Yannis on 08-16-12 09:04 PM:

Re: Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?

Quote from noob_trad3r:

... Any other theories?

He doesn't have to and he shouldn't.

Why doesn't Obama release his college records?

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 09:35 PM:

Quote from trefoil:

There is NO evidence for greater than market returns, sans leverage, from independent sources who have looked, over at Bain. Therefore, it is mathematically impossible, no matter about rollovers (which are supremely and utterly irrelevant to the math) to get to 103 mil by the guy who actually ran the place during the time analyzed, who has publicly shown therefore, that without leverage he can't generate greater than market returns, unless something else was done to juice the returns. That was the point of the post, which apparently you missed.
As for the condescending part, eh whatevs. I have had death wished upon me three times, so far, by you right wing fanatics. If condescension is what I'm giving back, I think that shows restraint.

Unreal dude, you didn't read the post and you are completely wrong. Max posted this link http://www.selfdirectedirasforlife....ublic-interest/ stating that Romney was allowed pretax money into Bain deals. Again you don't know exactly what he, ROMNEY, was invested in. The fund returns do not necessarily equal Romney's returns. He could have picked only deals he saw as worthy, it doesn't mean he was invested in the funds available to investors. Again I posted this link: http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...f-directed-ira, which states that Bain had a self directed 401k plan with an annual contribution of 30k.

"Rollover. It appears this was a major part of his strategy. Geoffrey Rehnert, a former Bain Capital partner who helped found the firm in 1984, said in that era it had a 401(k) plan that allowed employees to invest pretax dollars in its deals. Bain's 401(k) plan was self-directed and wasn't restricted to the usual set of mutual funds that most Americans are limited to. In 1984, the self-directed 401(k) structure allowed Mr. Romney and Bain to contribute up to $30k per year into his account. I'm guessing Mr. Romney took full advantage and maxed his contributions. Then once he built his fortune in the 401(k) plan, he did a 401(k) rollover into a self-directed IRA. But $100M is still a LOT of money when you can only put away $30k per year." He could have been invested in ANYTHING not necessarily just Bain funds or deals.

It is speculation that Romney had and funded this 401k, but if he did for 16 years it DRAMATICALLY changes the avg compounded RoR he needed to achieve 100m, which we still don't know for sure that he has in his IRA. If he began contributing in '84 the full 30k starting at the beginning of each year for the first 16 years and then rolled over to a an IRA and contributed ONLY 2k/year he only needed an avg 27%/year compounded. This is assuming he didn't even have an IRA at the same time as the 401k. The possibilities are endless. Your line about rollovers being irrelevant is unbelievably FALSE.. check your math. Also, like Phoenix said, leveraged instruments ARE still available in certain plans, like self directed 401k's and IRA's.

Reality is, it isn't only possible that Romney achieved 100m LEGITIMATELY in his IRA, it is many many times more likely than your assertion that he cheated. A baseless accusation on your part which you stated with certainty and are now defending irrationally.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-16-12 11:08 PM:

Quote from hughb:

This is starting to look like a ruse by a Romney campaign operative. Harry Reid would not be stupid enough to make such a brash statment unless he thought he had seen Romney's returns. Could they have been false returns designed to get Reid to do exactly what he did?

Either that I have overestimated Reid's intelligence.

He's a democrat "how smart could he be?".

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-16-12 11:36 PM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

Unreal dude, you didn't read the post and you are completely wrong. Max posted this link http://www.selfdirectedirasforlife....ublic-interest/ stating that Romney was allowed pretax money into Bain deals. Again you don't know exactly what he, ROMNEY, was invested in. The fund returns do not necessarily equal Romney's returns. He could have picked only deals he saw as worthy, it doesn't mean he was invested in the funds available to investors. Again I posted this link: http://thela25.com/blog/how-create-...f-directed-ira, which states that Bain had a self directed 401k plan with an annual contribution of 30k.

"Rollover. It appears this was a major part of his strategy. Geoffrey Rehnert, a former Bain Capital partner who helped found the firm in 1984, said in that era it had a 401(k) plan that allowed employees to invest pretax dollars in its deals. Bain's 401(k) plan was self-directed and wasn't restricted to the usual set of mutual funds that most Americans are limited to. In 1984, the self-directed 401(k) structure allowed Mr. Romney and Bain to contribute up to $30k per year into his account. I'm guessing Mr. Romney took full advantage and maxed his contributions. Then once he built his fortune in the 401(k) plan, he did a 401(k) rollover into a self-directed IRA. But $100M is still a LOT of money when you can only put away $30k per year." He could have been invested in ANYTHING not necessarily just Bain funds or deals.

It is speculation that Romney had and funded this 401k, but if he did for 16 years it DRAMATICALLY changes the avg compounded RoR he needed to achieve 100m, which we still don't know for sure that he has in his IRA. If he began contributing in '84 the full 30k starting at the beginning of each year for the first 16 years and then rolled over to a an IRA and contributed ONLY 2k/year he only needed an avg 27%/year compounded. This is assuming he didn't even have an IRA at the same time as the 401k. The possibilities are endless. Your line about rollovers being irrelevant is unbelievably FALSE.. check your math. Also, like Phoenix said, leveraged instruments ARE still available in certain plans, like self directed 401k's and IRA's.

Reality is, it isn't only possible that Romney achieved 100m LEGITIMATELY in his IRA, it is many many times more likely than your assertion that he cheated. A baseless accusation on your part which you stated with certainty and are now defending irrationally.

You're too gullible, I'll remain doubtful until I see a real breakdown, not the fiction you guys are posting.
How large is your IRA, being a big successful trader, you're probably close to $100 mil too.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by murray t turtle on 08-16-12 11:36 PM:

Re: Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?

Quote from noob_trad3r:

The non disclosure is doing damage. more damage than disclosure. Unless

So something makes no sense.

#1 if he barely paid any taxes, so what if he releases ...

Any other theories?

========
Yes,Trader3 ;
what business is it really of anybody in USA??.Thats between him , the IRS, & his CPA

I like Mitt Romney, even though he inroduced VP Rep Ryan as the ''next president,''LOL.

But Judicial Watch may need to keep any eye on coffee futures if he wins. Mormans generally hate coffee

John Moses Browning [gunmaker/ genius]was a Morman, so thts not really a slam on all Mormans. I wish John Moses Browning had gone to a Baptist Church all his life,...

__________________
murray t turtle,nickname,not an alias

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-16-12 11:53 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

You're too gullible, I'll remain doubtful until I see a real breakdown, not the fiction you guys are posting.
How large is your IRA, being a big successful trader, you're probably close to $100 mil too.

Just when I thought the responses couldn't get any more stupid. You guys have absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that he placed ARTIFICIALLY DEFLATED ASSETS into his IRA. none. It is a wild fantasy. Yet I'm gullible for pointing out how it's entirely mathematically possible, in countless ways, that he did it without cheating? You see the insanity here right?

You are literally just assuming it isn't doable, but you didn't found and run a successful private equity firm, he did. By the way didn't hilary clinton have quite a few years of above avg market returns? What do you think about that, you think she is capable of it but not Romney, who did it for a living.

And i'm not a big trader as I've stated before.

Posted by mrbill on 08-17-12 01:29 AM:

Look, I could care less about how much money Romney made, or his legal tax rate.

Much more here, and it's so damn obvious. Only a FOOL would hide his taxes at this point in time, and we don't ever want a FOOL in the White house as President.

All you ABO guys have to admit that this is stupid. Everyone is telling Mitt to release his tax returns, if he doesn't, then he's toast. And, maybe there is enough in them to make him burnt toast.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 02:16 AM:

Quote from mrbill:

Look, I could care less about how much money Romney made, or his legal tax rate.

Much more here, and it's so damn obvious. Only a FOOL would hide his taxes at this point in time, and we don't ever want a FOOL in the White house as President.

All you ABO guys have to admit that this is stupid. Everyone is telling Mitt to release his tax returns, if he doesn't, then he's toast. And, maybe there is enough in them to make him burnt toast.

#1) we might not want a fool in the wh but it sure hasn't stopped us.
evidence jimmy c , barry whatshisname.

2) I don't care anything about mitts tax returns, it's confidential information . There's a much stronger case for releasing tax returns once elected and zero case before holding office.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-17-12 08:16 AM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

Just when I thought the responses couldn't get any more stupid. You guys have absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that he placed ARTIFICIALLY DEFLATED ASSETS into his IRA. none. It is a wild fantasy. Yet I'm gullible for pointing out how it's entirely mathematically possible, in countless ways, that he did it without cheating? You see the insanity here right?

You are literally just assuming it isn't doable, but you didn't found and run a successful private equity firm, he did. By the way didn't hilary clinton have quite a few years of above avg market returns? What do you think about that, you think she is capable of it but not Romney, who did it for a living.

And i'm not a big trader as I've stated before.

I didn't say anything about deflate assets. I am doubtful Romney turned a $ 167 a month IRA for a decade or more into $ 100 million dollars. I'll believe it when I see it.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 08:57 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

I didn't say anything about deflate assets. I am doubtful Romney turned a $ 167 a month IRA for a decade ...

With that,
I guess we know more about your IRA than we needed to

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 09:08 AM:

People like cheeze-whiz arrow, tre-stump, free filcher, mrs bill , zero-current will never be satisfied.

Even if he did release every single years tax returns it won't list all transactions in his IRA and if it did their ignorance demonstrated thus far indicates they still wouldn't be able to figure it out.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by achilles28 on 08-17-12 10:17 AM:

Re: Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?

Quote from noob_trad3r:

The non disclosure is doing damage. more damage than disclosure. Unless

So something makes no sense.

#1 if he barely paid any taxes, so what if he releases it it will be a big yawn and everyone would think "I knew that" and end of story.

The only thing I could think is he broke the law and has committed tax evasion. Releasing returns would put him liable for charges.

Any other theories?

Romney's rich as fuck (>200 Million). He made it on 'Wallstreet'. Wallstreeters are hated and blamed for the economic crisis. In this climate where the public wants their pound of flesh from bankers, it doesn't make a lot of sense for Romney to wear his resume on his sleeve.

Posted by Yannis on 08-17-12 01:52 PM:

Again, the dems should stop trying to bully everybody. Why doesn't Obama release his college records? He is the one who's being secretive, not Romney.

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by achilles28 on 08-17-12 02:00 PM:

Quote from Yannis:

Again, the dems should stop trying to bully everybody. Why doesn't Obama release his college records? He is the one who's being secretive, not Romney.

Did Obama earn a Doctorate? Did he even graduate law school?

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 02:09 PM:

Quote from Yannis:

Again, the dems should stop trying to bully everybody. Why doesn't Obama release his college records? He is the one who's being secretive, not Romney.

you mean his admission as a foreign student or his outstanding affirmative action grades?

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Yannis on 08-17-12 02:15 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

you mean his admission as a foreign student or his outstanding affirmative action grades?

We should actually be looking for his papers where he describes how to change America to a more "socially aware" socialist/communist country like Cuba, China, Bulgaria, etc.

His arrest record as a petty drug dealer would also be useful if it exists... but how can we make sure it doesn't if he won't allow us to look?

What we need is someone on the Senate floor asking for this stuff after supposedly getting a call from a patriot of sorts...

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-17-12 03:30 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

I didn't say anything about deflate assets. I am doubtful Romney turned a $ 167 a month IRA for a decade or more into $ 100 million dollars. I'll believe it when I see it.

-10

You need to read the whole thread.. this post is painfully ignorant. We have already gone through this shit several times.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-17-12 03:59 PM:

Quote from achilles28:

Did Obama earn a Doctorate? Did he even graduate law school?

Rumor has it he earned a Ph.D in marijuana smoking. With help from affirmative action of course.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 04:07 PM:

one thing for sure. this thread exposes the republican right for the hypocrites they are. for 4 years we have endured whining about obama not showing his birth cert ect.
now one of the righties guys is caught in the same situation and the resident et righties run the other way. too funny.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-17-12 04:11 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

one thing for sure. this thread exposes the republican right for the hypocrites they are. for 4 years we have endured whining about obama not showing his birth cert ect.
now one of the righties guys is caught in the same situation and the resident et righties run the other way. too funny.

wrong. No one on the right in this thread stated anything as a fact.. you and trefoil did, and it was/is a totally baseless accusation. We just pointed it out to you.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-17-12 04:16 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

People like cheeze-whiz arrow, tre-stump, free filcher, mrs bill , zero-current will never be satisfied.

Even if he did release every single years tax returns it won't list all transactions in his IRA and if it did their ignorance demonstrated thus far indicates they still wouldn't be able to figure it out.

Would you believe an ad to sell a trading system touting growing a small $167 a month investment into over $100 million ?
If not why believe Romney did it ? Do you know anyone with an IRA even 1/10 the size of Romenys?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by bigarrow on 08-17-12 04:20 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

Rumor has it he earned a Ph.D in marijuana smoking. With help from affirmative action of course.

My BA was in Schlitz and got my masters at Coors Light.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by achilles28 on 08-17-12 04:27 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

Rumor has it he earned a Ph.D in marijuana smoking. With help from affirmative action of course.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 05:01 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

1)Would you believe an ad to sell a trading system touting growing a small $167 a month investment into over $100 million ?
If not why believe Romney did it ? 2)Do you know anyone with an IRA even 1/10 the size of Romenys?

1) That's not the claim AFAIK.
2) I intend to.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 08-17-12 05:13 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

one thing for sure. this thread exposes the republican right for the hypocrites they are. for 4 years we have endured whining about obama not showing his birth cert ect.
now one of the righties guys is caught in the same situation and the resident et righties run the other way. too funny.

It's not the same thing at all. Being foreign born would mean Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement to be president.

Of course, since when do modern democrats let something like the Constitution stand in their way?

Posted by balda on 08-17-12 06:02 PM:

My guess is when market took a dump in 2009 Romney had a huge loss which offsets his earnings and he end up paying very minimal if not zero tax which is absolutely legal. It still could be 13% on let's say 100K = 13K and all of a sudden it will be twisted into something like multimilliner paid only 13K when compared to someone who was paid 100K salary end up paying 25K.

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 06:15 PM:

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Romney reviews taxes. Never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years. Calls Reid out. Basicly says Reid is a liar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romne...-173623625.html

There's the pre-release statement. I would guess that they will probably see how the first debate goes. If it is obvious from that debate that the tax thing will remain a liability, then they will release them. This statement serves the purpose of turning the effective rate into old news.

OTOH, if he does well in the debate there is a chance that he won't release them ever. IMO, he only releases them if it is obvious that it would make a difference.

If he were smart, he would make a few more public disclosures and explanations regarding what's in the returns. Re-state the lowest effective rate of 13%. Acknowledge that a good portion is in a qualified plan, and explain how he will be required to pay tax on that money starting 5 years from now. Then encourage everyone to take advantage of qualified retirement plans.

During the next month, these disclosures will make headlines and disappear. Then I would tell him to do exactly what Newt did during the primaries. Release the returns late afternoon the day of the first debate.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 06:28 PM:

"Romney reviews taxes. Never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years. Calls Reid out. Basicly says Reid is a liar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romne...-173623625.html "

funny how when obama said he reviewed his birth cert and declared yes he was born in the us. it wasnt good enough for the republicans.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Yannis on 08-17-12 06:28 PM:

Don't you guys understand? Romney's using this thing to have an excuse, whenever he wants, to tell voters that Obama needs to talk about everything else BUT the economy... And the dems are playing directly into Romney's hand.

What's the downside? That voters might think that Romney has a secret or two? Wow! They already know that he's a WallStreeter gazillionnaire... what's the surprise there? That's why they want him, actually need him, to replace this disaster of a former professor/civil servant...

Let them sweat it out, Romney says. And, don't you ever forget, you poor, unemployed voters, that the liberal media's AA choice, Obama, the Amateur, screwed up with the economy very big and cost you a lot, you hear?

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 06:33 PM:

Or for that matter, even release them the moment the first debate starts. During the debate prep, Obama will have been instructed on how to address this tax issue.

The proper response from Romney will be, "Actually, my team has just released 5 additional years worth of returns. People are going to see how complex and convoluted our current tax code can get for someone who has founded and presided over a very large and successful business in America. They are going to see that I've paid many millions of dollars in tax and contributed even more than that to charity. I don't say this to be braggadocios, but rather to emphasize how out of touch and desperate Mr. Obama is in trying to divert attention away from the sad state of the American economy. He suggests that when I started my successful business that I didn't build the infrastructure that allows it to be possible. Mr. President, I've personally funded many millions of dollars worth of the infrastructure that I use, just like every other very successful American entrepreneur. Yes we did build it, and we continue to."

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 06:36 PM:

Quote from Yannis:

Don't you guys understand? Romney's using this thing to have an excuse, whenever he wants, to tell voters that Obama needs to talk about everything else BUT the economy... And the dems are playing directly into Romney's hand.

What's the downside? That voters might think that Romney has a secret or two? Wow! They already know that he's a WallStreeter gazillionnaire... what's the surprise there? That's why they want him, actually need him, to replace this disaster of a former professor/civil servant...

Let them sweat it out, Romney says. And, don't you ever forget, you poor, unemployed voters, that the liberal media's AA choice, Obama, the Amateur, screwed up with the economy very big and cost you a lot, you hear?

I considered this awhile ago, and then dismissed it, but after the headline today about the Dems offering Romney a deal, "release 5 years and we'll drop the issue", and him declining. Now I'm starting to think that you might have a point.

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-17-12 06:37 PM:

Quote from Epic:

Or for that matter, even release them the moment the first debate starts. During the debate prep, Obama will have been instructed on how to address this tax issue.

The proper response from Romney will be, "Actually, my team has just released 5 additional years worth of returns. People are going to see how complex and convoluted our current tax code can get for someone who has founded and presided over a very large and successful business in America. They are going to see that I've paid many millions of dollars in tax and contributed even more than that to charity. I don't say this to be braggadocios, but rather to emphasize how out of touch and desperate Mr. Obama is in trying to divert attention away from the sad state of the American economy. He suggests that when I started my successful business that I didn't build the infrastructure that allows it to be possible. Mr. President, I've personally funded many millions of dollars worth of the infrastructure that I use, just like every other very successful American entrepreneur. Yes we did build it, and we continue to."

+10 I like it, that right there could turn the tide.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 06:43 PM:

you guys are funny. anything to deflect the fact that he has to be uncomfortable about what is in there.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Yannis on 08-17-12 06:46 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

... he has to be uncomfortable about what is in there.

Of course he's uncomfortable, all the way to his Cayman Islands bank. That's why he's the best man for the job... He can actually make money for those who hire him and that's the guy we need right now.

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 06:51 PM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

+10 I like it, that right there could turn the tide.

Yeah, just like when Newt did it, it is easy to see how there is a ton of upside and almost no downside, and the timing is everything.

Pros:
-Oppo dump right in the middle of debate analysis overload for most voters. If there is something they dislike it won't receive nearly as much press or attention.
-No time for Obama team to address the contents before Romney defines it himself on a national stage. This one is huge, because any response can be made to look like playground amateur hour.
-Great rebuttal against an almost certain attack from Obama regarding lack of transparency.
-Opportunity to show that businessman, "do build that", firing up the base with buzz words.
-Obama will debate well, possibly even better than Romney, so if Romney loses the debate he could use a distraction.

Cons:
-If Romney wins the debate, it might distract taxist indies who come away thinking, "hey this Romney looks pretty good". I think he will lose or tie the debate so I don't consider this a problem.
-Provides more ammo for oppo spin. Gonna have to release at least 5 years eventually anyway tho.

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 06:53 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

you guys are funny. anything to deflect the fact that he has to be uncomfortable about what is in there.

I fully acknowledged that. You are acting like I am in Romney's corner. No so my friend. I just know what I would do if I were him. The point was that he should release them at the prime moment. The minute the first debate starts is the best moment. Most upside with least downside.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 06:54 PM:

Quote from Yannis:

Of course he's uncomfortable, all the way to his Cayman Islands bank. That's why he's the best man for the job... He can actually make money for those who hire him and that's the guy we need right now.

hell ya. romney can make money for america flipping other countries. here is his secret economic advisor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO5EFYY6P14

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 07:02 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

hell ya. romney can make money for america flipping other countries. here is his secret economic advisor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO5EFYY6P14

Oh man, we could make a killing on just flipping a few countries. LOL

I joke about it, but there is some historical precedent. Think Japan and Germany.

Posted by BSAM on 08-17-12 07:36 PM:

Stupid ass Obama and stupid ass Romney are worried about Romney's taxes.

THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT

EVERYBODY ELSE'S TAXES.

We just gotta get a viable third party started in our train wreck of a country.

Posted by Ricter on 08-17-12 07:38 PM:

Quote from BSAM:

Stupid ass Obama and stupid ass Romney are worried about Romney's taxes.

THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT

EVERYBODY ELSE'S TAXES.

Because taxes are so high, you mean?

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 07:47 PM:

Quote from BSAM:

Stupid ass Obama and stupid ass Romney are worried about Romney's taxes.

THEY SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT

EVERYBODY ELSE'S TAXES.

We just gotta get a viable third party started in our train wreck of a country.

is it that hard for you to understand that if all the rich guys like romney devise ways to escape their tax obligation EVERYBODY ELSE has to make up the difference?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by CaptainObvious on 08-17-12 07:53 PM:

I think when asked Romney should have this response every time.

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 07:55 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

is it that hard for you to understand that if all the rich guys like romney devise ways to escape their tax obligation EVERYBODY ELSE has to make up the difference?

Valid point until you examine the facts and realize that Romney paid 13.9% and the average household with median income pays around 12.5%.

The fact is that as stated our tax code is very progressive. Once everyone takes all available deductions, it is almost flat for those with median or higher income. It is almost non-existent for the those of lower income.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 07:57 PM:

Quote from Epic:

Valid point until you examine the facts and realize that Romney paid 13.9%

you examined what "facts" to come up with this number?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by PiggyBank on 08-17-12 08:02 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

is it that hard for you to understand that if all the rich guys like romney devise ways to escape their tax obligation EVERYBODY ELSE has to make up the difference?

You are making an argument against our present tax code. Which is something that I think we can all agree is insane and needs to be vastly improved or abandoned for something better.

Posted by Epic on 08-17-12 08:06 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

you examined what "facts" to come up with this number?

The only actual tax return that we've seen thus far is 13.9% and it is well documented that the average effective rate for households $50-70K is around 12.5%.

All else is just speculation.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 08:12 PM:

Quote from PiggyBank:

You are making an argument against our present tax code. Which is something that I think we can all agree is insane and needs to be vastly improved or abandoned for something better.

one of the best ways to get it changed would be to examine how the rich devise ways to escape their obligation and either make it the same for everybody else or tighten the rules.
i think a presidential candidate who has amassed a fortune while paying almost nothing in taxes might be a good place to start the debate if only we could see how it was done.
i wonder what you guys would say if the tables were turned? if obama were some rich guy who refused to release his returns would you righties excuse him. to say no makes you a hypocrite and to day yes makes you a lier.
thats the way a thinking person should look at things. what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. "do unto others"

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 08-17-12 08:12 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

"Romney reviews taxes. Never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years. Calls Reid out. Basicly says Reid is a liar.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romne...-173623625.html "

funny how when obama said he reviewed his birth cert and declared yes he was born in the us. it wasnt good enough for the republicans.

Two respsonses.

One, Obama has an obligation to prove he meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. Many serious people do not believe he has done so. Romney has no obligation to disclose anything about his taxes beyond what's done.

Two, Obama is a congenital liar. He's lied about everything from his background, even his conception after the Selma civil rights march, his achievements, his policies, his opponents policies and the economy. Romney by contrast is an obviously honorable man. Also, do you believe for a second if Romney was lying about his taxes, some obama thug in the IRS wouldn't have leaked it by now?

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-17-12 08:22 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Two respsonses.

One, Obama has an obligation to prove he meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. Many serious people do not believe he has done so. Romney has no obligation to disclose anything about his taxes beyond what's done.

Two, Obama is a congenital liar. He's lied about everything from his background, even his conception after the Selma civil rights march, his achievements, his policies, his opponents policies and the economy. Romney by contrast is an obviously honorable man. Also, do you believe for a second if Romney was lying about his taxes, some obama thug in the IRS wouldn't have leaked it by now?

romney has alredy been caught lying about his taxes:

From 2002 New York Times:

Until early June, Mr. Romney had said that he had paid his taxes as a Massachusetts resident while in Utah. He later acknowledged that in 1999 and 2000 he paid state taxes as a Utah resident and listed himself as either a part-time resident or a non-resident of Massachusetts. He said that in April, after deciding to run for governor, he had amended his 1999 and 2000 tax returns to say that he was a Massachusetts resident.
~June 19, 2002 GOP Candidate Seeks to Clarify Massachusetts Residency Issue New York Times (page 2)

Between March - June 2002 Romney and his campaign said, "trust us" Mitt filed his Returns showing Massachusetts as his primary residence --- but that was proven to be a blatant lie and Romney had to file an Amendment to his Federal Tax Returns retroactively.
June 7, 2002, the Boston Globe reported Mitt finally admitted he listed Utah as his primary residence so he Amended his 1999-2002 Federal & State Tax Returns retroactively when he decided to run for Governor of MA.

ROMNEY: “I am Amending them because it is the right thing to do. I was not thinking of running for office. I was trying to fill our -- my tax forms as accurately as possible.”
~ Romney quote in Romney says he didn’t file as Mass. resident in ’99-’00 Boston Globe 6/7/2002

There it is again, I didn't know I would run for office for Pete's sake.
On June 18, 2002, Romney, under Oath, told the Massachusetts State Ballot Commission that he signed the IRS Form 1040 but, gee whiz, he had no idea his signature meant he was signing under Penalty of Perjury that he had examined his 1040 and schedules in their entirety.

2002 New York Times reported:
Mitt Romney said in a hearing before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission.
ROMNEY: ''I do not read those [IRS 1040] or review those before I sign them nor the attached Schedules,''
~June 19, 2002 GOP Candidate Seeks to Clarify Massachusetts Residency Issue New York Times (page 2)

Here is the MS Ballot Commission exchange after Romney said he didn't bother to examine his Tax Returns.
LAWYER: "...if I were to hand you an affidavit, Mr. Romney, and at the end of it, typed in your signature, and above your signature, I put "signed under the pains and penalties of perjury," and I said, "Mr. Romney, sign this document," you'd read it first; wouldn't you?"
ROMNEY: "If you were to put it in front of me, yes."

LAWYER: "So, you'd sign documents under the pains and penalties of perjury without necessarily reading them; is that your testimony?"

ROMNEY: "I have not read the entire Massachusetts tax form, nor the Federal tax form, nor the Utah tax form, and all of them have me sign under pains and penalty to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I do not read the entire form."

[-June 18, 2002 testimony before MA State Ballot Commission]

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-17-12 08:30 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

romney has alredy been caught lying about his taxes:

From 2002 New York Times:

Until early June, Mr. Romney had said that he had paid his taxes as a Massachusetts resident while in Utah. He later acknowledged that in 1999 and 2000 he paid state taxes as a Utah resident and listed himself as either a part-time resident or a non-resident of Massachusetts. He said that in April, after deciding to run for governor, he had amended his 1999 and 2000 tax returns to say that he was a Massachusetts resident.
~June 19, 2002 GOP Candidate Seeks to Clarify Massachusetts Residency Issue New York Times (page 2)

Between March - June 2002 Romney and his campaign said, "trust us" Mitt filed his Returns showing Massachusetts as his primary residence --- but that was proven to be a blatant lie and Romney had to file an Amendment to his Federal Tax Returns retroactively.
June 7, 2002, the Boston Globe reported Mitt finally admitted he listed Utah as his primary residence so he Amended his 1999-2002 Federal & State Tax Returns retroactively when he decided to run for Governor of MA.

ROMNEY: “I am Amending them because it is the right thing to do. I was not thinking of running for office. I was trying to fill our -- my tax forms as accurately as possible.”
~ Romney quote in Romney says he didn’t file as Mass. resident in ’99-’00 Boston Globe 6/7/2002

There it is again, I didn't know I would run for office for Pete's sake.
On June 18, 2002, Romney, under Oath, told the Massachusetts State Ballot Commission that he signed the IRS Form 1040 but, gee whiz, he had no idea his signature meant he was signing under Penalty of Perjury that he had examined his 1040 and schedules in their entirety.

2002 New York Times reported:
Mitt Romney said in a hearing before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission.
ROMNEY: ''I do not read those [IRS 1040] or review those before I sign them nor the attached Schedules,''
~June 19, 2002 GOP Candidate Seeks to Clarify Massachusetts Residency Issue New York Times (page 2)

Here is the MS Ballot Commission exchange after Romney said he didn't bother to examine his Tax Returns.
LAWYER: "...if I were to hand you an affidavit, Mr. Romney, and at the end of it, typed in your signature, and above your signature, I put "signed under the pains and penalties of perjury," and I said, "Mr. Romney, sign this document," you'd read it first; wouldn't you?"
ROMNEY: "If you were to put it in front of me, yes."

LAWYER: "So, you'd sign documents under the pains and penalties of perjury without necessarily reading them; is that your testimony?"

ROMNEY: "I have not read the entire Massachusetts tax form, nor the Federal tax form, nor the Utah tax form, and all of them have me sign under pains and penalty to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I do not read the entire form."

[-June 18, 2002 testimony before MA State Ballot Commission]

tim geitner signed an affidavit swearing he paid his SE taxes when if fact he hadn't.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Yannis on 08-17-12 08:40 PM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

... LAWYER: "So, you'd sign documents under the pains and penalties of perjury without necessarily reading them; is that your testimony?"...

And who was that said, on the House of Reps floor, that they would have to pass the %%$$## Obamacare law before they could read it?

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by Lucrum on 08-17-12 08:44 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

tim geitner signed an affidavit swearing he paid his SE taxes when if fact he hadn't.

And he was rewarded for his dishonesty with the top job at the US Treasury.

Maybe I should be cheating on my taxes if that's all that happens when caught.

Posted by good ole boy on 08-17-12 09:04 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Two respsonses.

One, Obama has an obligation to prove he meets the Constitutional requirement of natural born citizen. Many serious people do not believe he has done so. Romney has no obligation to disclose anything about his taxes beyond what's done.

Two, Obama is a congenital liar. He's lied about everything from his background, even his conception after the Selma civil rights march, his achievements, his policies, his opponents policies and the economy. Romney by contrast is an obviously honorable man. Also, do you believe for a second if Romney was lying about his taxes, some obama thug in the IRS wouldn't have leaked it by now?

One. He has done so. "Many serious people do not beleive..." His birth documentation is good enough for the United States Constitution. And if you are going to trash the United States Constitution my good fellow I say: MOVE TO FRANCE!!!

Two. You are a cultivated liar, a tool of right wing propaganda.
Have you had a brain scan recently? Many serious people suspect you might have a growth in your neocortex (yes, guys, even AAA has one) that is impinging on brain areas
associated with rational thought.

You just can't seem to get any more insane on the birth issue. Do you think that if Obama were not a natural born citizen that the Republican controlled House would not have launched a hearing and investigation to uncover his "unnatural" born status?

3 years of Obama and you have gone completely off the rails. It's not like the President is cuckolding you. And neither is Justice Roberts.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-17-12 09:08 PM:

Quote from good ole boy:

One. He has done so. "Many serious people do not beleive..." His birth documentation is good enough for the United States Constitution. And if you are going to trash the United States Constitution my good fellow I say: MOVE TO FRANCE!!!

Two. You are a cultivated liar, a tool of right wing propaganda.
Have you had a brain scan recently? Many serious people suspect you might have growth in your neocortex (yes, guys, even AAA has one) that is impinging on brain areas
associated with rational thought.

Odumbo IS is a congenital liar. He HAS lied about everything from his background, even his conception after the Selma civil rights march, his achievements, his policies, his opponents policies and the economy.

I guess that makes YOU a tool of left wing propaganda.

Posted by good ole boy on 08-17-12 09:20 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

Odumbo IS is a congenital liar. He HAS lied about everything from his background, even his conception after the Selma civil rights march, his achievements, his policies, his opponents policies and the economy.

I guess that makes YOU a tool of left wing propaganda.

EMPHATIC Congratulations of having found the Caps Lock key, Lucrum.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-17-12 09:23 PM:

Quote from good ole boy:

EMPHATIC Congratulations of having found the Caps Lock key, Lucrum.

I never use caps lock only the shift key, good ole BOY.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-18-12 01:06 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

My BA was in Schlitz.....

You drank that shit?

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 01:45 AM:

Quote from Lucrum:

You drank that shit?

It was 1975 and was my uncles beer of choice and he was the boss so that's what we drank. Can't remember what it tasted like but I had some good times back then.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Ricter on 08-18-12 01:56 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

It was 1975 and was my uncles beer of choice and he was the boss so that's what we drank. Can't remember what it tasted like but I had some good times back then.

In 1975 I drank Michelob mostly, and Mickey's when I could get it.

Posted by good ole boy on 08-18-12 02:21 AM:

Quote from Yannis:

Of course he's uncomfortable, all the way to his Cayman Islands bank. That's why he's the best man for the job... He can actually make money for those who hire him and that's the guy we need right now.

Do you seriously think your economic lot will improve with Romney in the White House? You're half ass losers now, always were, and always will be. I made good money under Clinton, very good money under Bush, and very good money under Obama. You know what they had to do with it? Not a fucking thing. Not one motherfucking goddamned fucking thing.

I don't massage ridiculous fantasies promoted by party ideologues like you ring wing nuts who spend all day listening to Rush and absorbing uncritically every mendacious rant printed on the internet. I go out and earn my keep. Doesn't matter which party is in control or not. If Romney wins, I win. If Obama wins, I win.

You want to hang your life and lot in the balance of an election. Go ahead. Might as well chop off your peckers and be palace eunuchs for all the guts you dickless dorks have. Write me if you want to apply for a postiion.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 02:59 AM:

Quote from good ole boy:

You want to hang your life and lot in the balance of an election. Go ahead. Might as well chop off your peckers and be palace eunuchs for all the guts you dickless dorks have. Write me if you want to apply for a postiion.

Looks like you just came out of the closet there good ol BOY

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 03:07 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Looks like you just came out of the closet there good ol BOY

You have it backwards the masters had eunuchs so they couldn't screw the girls in the harem.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 03:27 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

You have it backwards the masters had eunuchs so they couldn't screw the girls in the harem.

That's even worse
You liberals sure have kinky imaginations and delusions of grandeur.

Geeze no wonder you guys fall all over yourselves pretending to support homosexual rights. You guys are just using it as a smokescreen to assuage your own brand of depravity. (thinking we won't notice btw)

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 04:24 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's even worse
You liberals sure have kinky imaginations and delusions of grandeur.

I can tell you're not a history buff are you.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Pekelo on 08-18-12 09:24 AM:

TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire) August 16, 2012 -- Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY" rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush."

Steve Baldwin, former Republican Whip of the California State Assembly, said recent journalism about the actual date of Romney's departure from Bain Capital "has almost certainly revealed the real reason Romney refuses to release any more than two years of personal IRS data: Bain's craven investment in Stericycle corporation - a vendor to Planned Parenthood - lined Romney's pockets with profits from the incineration of aborted human fetuses. Mitt, it's time to disclose your tax returns and everything else about Stericycle."

Baldwin, also former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential conservative organization in Washington, said, "Tampa's GOP delegates will shame themselves if they don't conscientiously abstain from Romney on the first ballot to derail the worst nominee in our party's history. We're convinced Mitt Romney is hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns."

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 11:08 AM:

Quote from Pekelo:

TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire) August 16, 2012 -- Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY" rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush."

Steve Baldwin, former Republican Whip of the California State Assembly, said recent journalism about the actual date of Romney's departure from Bain Capital "has almost certainly revealed the real reason Romney refuses to release any more than two years of personal IRS data: Bain's craven investment in Stericycle corporation - a vendor to Planned Parenthood - lined Romney's pockets with profits from the incineration of aborted human fetuses. Mitt, it's time to disclose your tax returns and everything else about Stericycle."

Baldwin, also former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential conservative organization in Washington, said, "Tampa's GOP delegates will shame themselves if they don't conscientiously abstain from Romney on the first ballot to derail the worst nominee in our party's history. We're convinced Mitt Romney is hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns."

I'm sorry but anyone who dumps romney because of this is a complete moron.
A long time ago I made My investments apolitical after studying the returns and characteristics of socially responsible mutual funds.
increased fees and inferior returns is the norm.
bain's obligation to investors was to give the best returns that it could nothing more nothing less.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Lucrum on 08-18-12 01:15 PM:

Quote from Pekelo:

TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire) August 16, 2012 -- Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY" rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush."

Steve Baldwin, former Republican Whip of the California State Assembly, said recent journalism about the actual date of Romney's departure from Bain Capital "has almost certainly revealed the real reason Romney refuses to release any more than two years of personal IRS data: Bain's craven investment in Stericycle corporation - a vendor to Planned Parenthood - lined Romney's pockets with profits from the incineration of aborted human fetuses. Mitt, it's time to disclose your tax returns and everything else about Stericycle."

Baldwin, also former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential conservative organization in Washington, said, "Tampa's GOP delegates will shame themselves if they don't conscientiously abstain from Romney on the first ballot to derail the worst nominee in our party's history. We're convinced Mitt Romney is hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns."

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...30&pagenumber=2

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 02:19 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...30&pagenumber=2

What's your point ?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 02:42 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

What's your point ?

perhaps that peke doesn't know much about investing or trading.

peke info might be relevant if the returns garnered are or were a significant revenue source for Bain but I suspect it was trivial.

Besides people who advocate for abortion on demand as a right, shouldn't be getting their panties in a wad over it.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by AK Forty Seven on 08-18-12 03:05 PM:

Quote from Pekelo:

TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire) August 16, 2012 -- Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY" rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush."

Steve Baldwin, former Republican Whip of the California State Assembly, said recent journalism about the actual date of Romney's departure from Bain Capital "has almost certainly revealed the real reason Romney refuses to release any more than two years of personal IRS data: Bain's craven investment in Stericycle corporation - a vendor to Planned Parenthood - lined Romney's pockets with profits from the incineration of aborted human fetuses. Mitt, it's time to disclose your tax returns and everything else about Stericycle."

Baldwin, also former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), an influential conservative organization in Washington, said, "Tampa's GOP delegates will shame themselves if they don't conscientiously abstain from Romney on the first ballot to derail the worst nominee in our party's history. We're convinced Mitt Romney is hiding Bain abortion profits in his tax returns."

This would kill Romneys campaign if true.Being for abortion then against it is one thing , profiting from it ends this race.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 03:18 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

perhaps that peke doesn't know much about investing or trading.

peke info might be relevant if the returns garnered are or were a significant revenue source for Bain but I suspect it was trivial.

Besides people who advocate for abortion on demand as a right, shouldn't be getting their panties in a wad over it.

You got that from one call on a trade? I thought the point before that was that the Christian onservatives would have a moral problem supporting someone who profited from abortions. But you knew that didn't you.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 03:43 PM:

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

This would kill Romneys campaign if true.Being for abortion then against it is one thing , profiting from it ends this race.

That's pretty funny coming from the fluffer for our dear leader (bo) who's political campaign started in the living room of a known unrepentant domestic terrorist.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by AK Forty Seven on 08-18-12 04:02 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's pretty funny coming from the fluffer for our dear leader (bo) who's political campaign started in the living room of a known unrepentant domestic terrorist.

Another ET rightie making sexual posts about the President

I wish you and your fellow righties would keep your sexual fantasies to yourselves and stick to politics

Posted by Lucrum on 08-18-12 04:20 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

What's your point ?

That lil Pecker doesn't know anything about investing or trading.

Why, what did you think it was?

Posted by mrbill on 08-18-12 05:49 PM:

Latest rumor, at least to me, coming from an un-named source from the Mormon Church. Perhaps Mr. Romney did not tithe his full 10% as prescribed by Church tradition. Maybe Romney is scared of the Church. Hey, who knows?

It is getting weirder and weirder, and could end up looking really bad for the Obama campaign if he does release them, and there is actually nothing to be worried about. But then Ann Romney's statements would seem odd as well.

Posted by Spike Trader on 08-18-12 06:00 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

That lil Pecker doesn't know anything about investing or trading.

Why, what did you think it was?

The subject matter is ''Why is Romney not disclosing his returns?
what are you saying ?

Posted by AK Forty Seven on 08-18-12 07:11 PM:

Quote from mrbill:

Latest rumor, at least to me, coming from an un-named source from the Mormon Church. Perhaps Mr. Romney did not tithe his full 10% as prescribed by Church tradition. Maybe Romney is scared of the Church. Hey, who knows?

It is getting weirder and weirder, and could end up looking really bad for the Obama campaign if he does release them, and there is actually nothing to be worried about. But then Ann Romney's statements would seem odd as well.

I think Obama has Romneys taxes.Too much of a gamble to make this such a huge issue and not know whats in them imo

Posted by tomdavis on 08-18-12 07:26 PM:

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

I think Obama has Romneys taxes.Too much of a gamble to make this such a huge issue and not know whats in them imo

Of course he has them. The president owns and operates the US Treasury, including the IRS. He has seen everything.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-18-12 09:01 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

That lil Pecker doesn't know anything about investing or trading.

Why, what did you think it was?

You got that from that one post of his?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 09:32 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

You got that from that one post of his?

You the high IQ genius that you are, only read 1 post?
Maybe that's the problem with your perception.
You ascribe your own ineptness to those who disagree with you.

(I read the whole thread and more cheeze-whiz arrow)

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by Lucrum on 08-18-12 11:31 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

You got that from that one post of his?

No from his whole thread. Was that too long for you to read?

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-18-12 11:50 PM:

Quote from tomdavis:

He has seen everything.

Well ,everything but who sired Michelle obama's children.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-19-12 12:06 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

You the high IQ genius that you are, only read 1 post?
Maybe that's the problem with your perception.
You ascribe your own ineptness to those who disagree with you.

(I read the whole thread and more cheeze-whiz arrow)

Lucrum referenced only one post. Did you read up on the definition and history of eunuch yet donut boy?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-19-12 12:16 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Lucrum referenced only one post....

Had that been the case I would have quoted the post.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...30&pagenumber=2

The link goes to the second page of a two page thread.

The thread where he's down over 100 ES points and still claiming he's ahead.

You know a guy who is full of shit but not bright and or honest enough to admit it.

The paper trading poser that for some reason you feel the need to defend.

What are you, about 58 now?

Posted by bigarrow on 08-19-12 12:23 AM:

Quote from Lucrum:

Had that been the case I would have quoted the post.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...30&pagenumber=2

The link goes to the second page of a two page thread.

The thread where he's down over 100 ES points and still claiming he's ahead.

You know a guy who is full of shit but not bright and or honest enough to admit it.

The paper trading poser that for some reason you feel the need to defend.

I'll go back and read it later.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-19-12 12:23 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

I'll go back and read it later.

SURE you will.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-19-12 12:26 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Lucrum referenced only one post.

Well cheeze-whiz arrow that just means you lack perception and initiative.

As I stated before I read the whole thread and more

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-19-12 12:30 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

I'll go back and read it later.

If you want the cliff notes version : Just take an honest look in the mirror

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-19-12 12:37 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

I can tell you're not a history buff are you.

phht: I have a BA in History and was awarded the National Collegiate History award my junior year.

I'd say that's buff enough.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-19-12 03:32 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

phht: I have a BA in History and was awarded the National Collegiate History award my junior year.

I'd say that's buff enough.

No shit, I'm impressed. I don't have those credentials but i do like history. I enjoyed history classes the most in high school and college.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-19-12 04:01 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

No shit, I'm impressed. I don't have those credentials but i do like history. I enjoyed history classes the most in high school and college.

History is interesting but as a profession I quickly figured out it was a waste of time.
The way Academia is set up one has to specialize to the point of knowing every minutia about basically nothing plus the myriad dead ends and blind alleys one can fall into.

Plus the real kicker is "the why" is always changing according to the author and the popularity contest of adherents.

I mean to me that's like physicists waking up one day and declaring the charge on electrons are positive from now on and sometimes pi is 3.43 if we need it to be.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by mrbill on 08-19-12 09:02 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

History is interesting but as a profession I quickly figured out it was a waste of time.
The way Academia is set up one has to specialize to the point of knowing every minutia about basically nothing plus the myriad dead ends and blind alleys one can fall into.

Plus the real kicker is "the why" is always changing according to the author and the popularity contest of adherents.

I mean to me that's like physicists waking up one day and declaring the charge on electrons are positive from now on and sometimes pi is 3.43 if we need it to be.

I actually agree, PT. Agree on the revisionist and simply made up history part of your discussion.

Going back only a few hundred years, and following it forward. And, I will even defer to you since you probably know better than I. My understanding is that the first 10 centuries after Christ, there were less than 1 or 2% of the population literate, and it slowly, very slowly increased.

The first few centuries of history was written by theologians of some sort, and therefor the emphasis on Religion and how it was intertwined with the factual, natural history of events.

I can't seem to find the hard numbers for literacy rates in the 17th and 18th century. - sometimes my web server over here is not the best either - but I think I recall something like 5%, perhaps you can recall from your studies.

My point, making similar assumptions, is that it would have been pretty easy to alter history, early science, and obviously pre-history. Resulting in so much to be debunked in the our current century. AND, now it seems, in some ways to be declining again. Not so much in actual reading skills, but in the younger people's desire to know stuff, put very simply, they just don't seem to care as much about what goes on around them. This leaves the doors open to be easily manipulated, and not just by political pundits, but by anyone in the media. Right can claim MSM is left, left can claim Talk Radio is right leaning, and as we fail, as a generation, to get back to reality vs. political sides, it hurts the future.

Not trying to argue either side here, honestly, just pointing out my feelings about learning, and those who really care.

Posted by Arnie Guitar on 08-20-12 07:04 PM:

Listening to Barry's news conference right now, screaming at the TV...

Regarding Romney's tax returns:

Barry:"We just want to see that he is playing by the rules."

Really?

I wish one of those "reporters" (sick) would then ask:

"Mr. President, are you going to disband the IRS, or fire all of the employees for not doing their job?"

Jesus H. You know Who, one of the most high profile people in the world's taxes aren't scrutinized with a fine tooth comb by the IRS? And with his bevy if tax attorneys there would be a problem?

Just a diversion that the average American can't figure out.

"We just want to see that he is playing by the rules."

What bullshit. Pisses me off to no end.

__________________
Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.

Posted by Ricter on 08-20-12 07:32 PM:

Quote from Arnie Guitar:

Listening to Barry's news conference right now, screaming at the TV...

Regarding Romney's tax returns:

Barry:"We just want to see that he is playing by the rules."

Is that an actual quote?

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-20-12 07:35 PM:

Quote from Arnie Guitar:

Listening to Barry's news conference right now, screaming at the TV...

Regarding Romney's tax returns:

Barry:"We just want to see that he is playing by the rules."

Really?

I wish one of those "reporters" (sick) would then ask:

"Mr. President, are you going to disband the IRS, or fire all of the employees for not doing their job?"

Jesus H. You know Who, one of the most high profile people in the world's taxes aren't scrutinized with a fine tooth comb by the IRS? And with his bevy if tax attorneys there would be a problem?

Just a diversion that the average American can't figure out.

"We just want to see that he is playing by the rules."

What bullshit. Pisses me off to no end.

you think obama has the power to call up the irs and tell them to make public romneys returns?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Arnie Guitar on 08-20-12 07:41 PM:

You think the IRS wouldn't pursue any illegalities in Romney's return?

__________________
Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-20-12 07:47 PM:

Quote from Arnie Guitar:

You think the IRS wouldn't pursue any illegalities in Romney's return?

not in public. it takes years for the irs to make something like that publi and then it will only happen if it goes to trial. there can be back and forth going on right now that will take years to settle.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Arnie Guitar on 08-20-12 07:50 PM:

Yeah, tell that to Willie Nelson.

Listen, in today's world, if someone, somewhere, somehow, got the slightest sniff of any impropriety in Romney's income taxes, the media would light up like nobody's business.

__________________
Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.

Posted by Free Thinker on 08-20-12 07:58 PM:

Quote from Arnie Guitar:

Yeah, tell that to Willie Nelson.

Listen, in today's world, if someone, somewhere, somehow, got the slightest sniff of any impropriety in Romney's income taxes, the media would light up like nobody's business.

not true at all. first of all nobody is saying he has done anything illegal. he is working in grey areas of the law. things like that the irs will fight private a paperwork battle for years and it will only become public if they cant settle and it goes to trial.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs_j1EEplI&feature=feedwll&list=WL

Posted by Yannis on 08-20-12 08:01 PM:

Note To Romney

Keep those dumb hypocrites and half wits begging Mitt, let them show that they have no interest in the economy, that they can do nothing to improve the situation... .. ...

and give them nothing!

__________________
Happy here and now!

Posted by AK Forty Seven on 08-20-12 08:12 PM:

Quote from Yannis:

Note To Romney

Keep those dumb hypocrites and half wits begging Mitt, let them show that they have no interest in the economy, that they can do nothing to improve the situation... .. ...

and give them nothing!

+1

So from now to election day the media focus is on Mitts taxes and speculation on whats he's hiding .Finally we agree on something

Posted by 377OHMS on 08-20-12 08:34 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

It was 1975 and was my uncles beer of choice and he was the boss so that's what we drank. Can't remember what it tasted like but I had some good times back then.

Well, that explains the senility and doddering old-fartedness. You probably haven't had a proper erection since the 90s.

Fershimmeled_old_arrow LOL.

Posted by noob_trad3r on 08-20-12 08:44 PM:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...le-13d-1999.pdf

Romney's name popped up 7 times, Voting rights as well.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-21-12 01:33 AM:

Quote from 377OHMS:

Well, that explains the senility and doddering old-fartedness. You probably haven't had a proper erection since the 90s.

Fershimmeled_old_arrow LOL.

Are you gay, are you flirting with me?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 01:57 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Are you gay, are you flirting with me?

You want him to be flirting with you? I knew you can't hardly get laid but I didn't think it was so bad you'd switch teams.

Posted by Pekelo on 08-21-12 02:08 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

perhaps that peke doesn't know much about investing or trading.

And that would be perfectly irrelevant to this thread, which is about Romney. Is that dumbfuck Lucrum still stalking me? How pathetic...

By the way, I haven't even expressed my opinion in this thread, the only thing I did was posting a news article without comment...

P.S.: All my 3 trading journals on ET were live trades and profitable... But again, this thread is about Romney if I recall....Since I like to predict and get back on topic, Romney will NOT release his taxes....

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 02:19 AM:

Quote from Pekelo:

P.S.: All my 3 trading journals on ET were live trades and profitable...

LOL

Paper "profits" don't really count lil' Pecker.

And you didn't even have a pretend paper profit in the journal I linked to.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...30&pagenumber=2

Posted by RCG Trader on 08-21-12 02:52 AM:

Quote from Free Thinker:

not in public. it takes years for the irs to make something like that publi and then it will only happen if it goes to trial. there can be back and forth going on right now that will take years to settle.

Absolutely. The IRS will only go after you hardcore if you try to run. If you don't try to run, they can actually be very reasonable.

Posted by RCG Trader on 08-21-12 02:53 AM:

Quote from 377OHMS:

Well, that explains the senility and doddering old-fartedness. You probably haven't had a proper erection since the 90s.

Fershimmeled_old_arrow LOL.

This from a man over 50......wow.

Posted by 377OHMS on 08-21-12 03:01 AM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Are you gay, are you flirting with me?

No, I like brainy girls and that disqualifies you in both categories.

I've watched you being called out for stupidity several times every week by people across the political spectrum. It seems that your stupidity isn't confined by political ideals or social conscience. Your claims of having a high IQ are completely nullified by stupid post after stupid post until most folks here have reached the conclusion that you are just not a bright guy shrivelled-arrow.

ET justice is a beautiful thing to behold.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 03:02 AM:

Quote from RCG Trader:

Absolutely. The IRS will only go after you hardcore if you try to run. If you don't try to run, they can actually be very reasonable.

Sounds like you've had unpaid taxes.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-21-12 06:14 AM:

from PHOENIX TRADING:

perhaps that peke doesn't know much about investing or trading.

Quote from Pekelo:

1)And that would be perfectly irrelevant to this thread, which is about Romney. Is that dumbfuck Lucrum still stalking me? How pathetic...

2) By the way, [b]I haven't even expressed my opinion in this thread, the only thing I did was posting a news article without comment...

Not so fast there piss ant.
1) Your ineptness with trading and investing has EVERYTHING to do with your (in)ability to judge the quality of a news article about the story.

2) WTF?: Where the hell do you think you are posting to,sesame street?

Of course you are making an indication of your opinion known by posting the article , especially without comments refuting assertions or claims contained in the story.

Get real, If I were to start posting excerpts from mein kampf without comment , I'm sure your fellow leftwits would be having me banned in short order for being a nazi.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-21-12 06:17 AM:

Quote from 377OHMS:

No, I like brainy girls and that disqualifies you in both categories.

I've watched you being called out for stupidity several times every week by people across the political spectrum. It seems that your stupidity isn't confined by political ideals or social conscience. Your claims of having a high IQ are completely nullified by stupid post after stupid post until most folks here have reached the conclusion that you are just not a bright guy shrivelled-arrow.

ET justice is a beautiful thing to behold.

That's cheeze-whiz arrow to you and don't you forget it .

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by 377OHMS on 08-21-12 06:33 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

That's cheeze-whiz arrow to you and don't you forget it .

lol

Posted by bigarrow on 08-21-12 02:59 PM:

Quote from 377OHMS:

No, I like brainy girls and that disqualifies you in both categories.

I've watched you being called out for stupidity several times every week by people across the political spectrum. It seems that your stupidity isn't confined by political ideals or social conscience. Your claims of having a high IQ are completely nullified by stupid post after stupid post until most folks here have reached the conclusion that you are just not a bright guy shrivelled-arrow.

ET justice is a beautiful thing to behold.

Correction my gay friend. Only those in your camp who I've frustrated have resorted to calling me names. Just like when I spank you on here your only response is "your stupid" Now run along donut boy, you arent up to the challenge. You may have the intelligence and work ethic to do well in your field of work but you do not have a quick wit.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 03:11 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Correction my gay friend. Only those in your camp who I've frustrated have resorted to calling me names. Just like when I spank you on here your only response is "your stupid" Now run along donut boy, you arent up to the challenge. You may have the intelligence and work ethic to do well in your field of work but you do not have a quick wit.

Metaphorically speaking you just dropped your hammer and watched in ~~horror~~ amazement as it slid down the roof and landed on one of your Mexican workers heads.

Posted by bigarrow on 08-21-12 03:30 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

Metaphorically speaking you just dropped your hammer and watched in ~~horror~~ amazement as it slid down the roof and landed on one of your Mexican workers heads.

That one was weak. Your off your game lately Lucrum, usually every 20th post or so you'll come up something clever or funny, I hadn't seen those since your return. Get back in form I enjoy reading them.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 04:04 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

... Your off your game lately Lucrum...

How very dyslogistic of you.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-21-12 04:09 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Correction my gay friend. Only those in your camp who I've frustrated have resorted to calling me names. Just like when I spank you on here your only response is "your stupid" Now run along donut boy, you arent up to the challenge. You may have the intelligence and work ethic to do well in your field of work but you do not have a quick wit.

ah yes the virtues of self -deception.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by bigarrow on 08-21-12 05:22 PM:

Quote from Lucrum:

dyslogistic

Word of the day?

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 05:49 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Word of the day?

How many "red neck" right wingers do you know that subscribe to the word of the day?

Posted by bigarrow on 08-21-12 05:57 PM:

Dyslogistic isn't a word I've heard or read before that I can recall.

__________________
"I don't wear no Stetson But I'm willin' to bet son That I'm as big a Texan as you are"

Posted by Epic on 08-21-12 06:46 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Dyslogistic isn't a word I've heard or read before that I can recall.

yes, but in the context of politics, it is a very useful term that should be more widely utilized.

E.G.

A dyslogistic description of abortions rights activists would be pro-abortion. The eulogistic term would be pro-choice. Both are correct in their description, but paint either a favorable or unfavorable picture of the same position.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 07:01 PM:

Quote from bigarrow:

Dyslogistic isn't a word I've heard or read before that I can recall.

Really? You recently said the same thing about "libtard". A word used here almost daily.

(And yes I do subscribe to a dictionary word of the day)

Posted by mrbill on 08-21-12 11:27 PM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

ah yes the virtues of self -deception.

Not trying to add to the childish behavior, but isn't the term above, self deception more indicative of you than the others on here? You tend to align with those who state your "kind" are despicable, only they you use much more sickening terms. And you seem to try to over-compensate by being their buddies, and saying you don't mind all the God awful things they say about gays. From not being one of God's children, to having inferior genes.

Reminds of the syndrome they accused Patty Hearst of having, where you are so denigrated that you seek acceptance from your captors. In this case, not so much captors, as mental controllers.

I know you'll come back with some hateful personal attack, but I wish you would take a second to think what I say through. But, of course you won't. Too bad, really.

And, FWIW, I was actually reaching out to you in another thread, about literacy rates of previous centuries. Were you able to help out? Or am I hated so much by you that we cannot carry on a civil conversation? And, yes, I know my note above will be construed as hatred on my part, but it really isn't.

Posted by Lucrum on 08-21-12 11:39 PM:

Quote from mrbill:

Not trying to add to the childish behavior...

And yet...you just did.

Posted by PHOENIX TRADING on 08-22-12 12:23 AM:

Quote from mrbill:

Not trying to add to the childish behavior, but isn't the term above, self deception more indicative of you than the others on here? You tend to align with those who state your "kind" are despicable, only they you use much more sickening terms. And you seem to try to over-compensate by being their buddies, and saying you don't mind all the God awful things they say about gays. From not being one of God's children, to having inferior genes.

Quite frankly the awful things they say about gay activists (IOW LIBERAL ASSHOLES) is probably justified.

Being gay doesn't mean you have to be a liberal douche bag.

btw :It's called Stockholm syndrome and no I don't have it but a strong case can be made for a certain ethnic persuasion exhibiting it's symptoms.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind. (Pasteur)

Posted by mrbill on 08-22-12 12:52 AM:

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Quite frankly the awful things they say about gay activists (IOW LIBERAL ASSHOLES) is probably justified.

Being gay doesn't mean you have to be a liberal douche bag.

btw :It's called Stockholm syndrome and no I don't have it but a strong case can be made for a certain ethnic persuasion exhibiting it's symptoms.

Well, ok, except I'm pretty sure the descriptions that I read did not distinguish between activists and any other gay person.

All liberals are not douche bags, especially just because you disagree with their comments. Just as all conservatives are not bigoted asses, just because so many are.

And, yes, that's the syndrome I was thinking of, thanks for reminding me of that.

I just see you as a Confederate Soldier who votes for Lincoln, just to get along with his captors. Does that make sense to you? Not trying to be harsh.

You speak of tattoos, and a farmer john tan. Are the tattoos more like the tough guy kind? Maybe the military type? Just curious, don't need to see them. Body art is interesting.

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 PM.