That, at least, is what the Spouse of Rmoney is saying.
Bullshit. That is damn near a Nixonian-type claim. Releasing lots of years worth of tax returns is a rite-of-passage for wannabee presidential candidates that goes all the way back to a guy named George W. Romney. If someone wants to keep that stuff private, then there is one thing they can do: Not run for office.
So the allegations that, between 2004 and 2007, Romney invested in Soylent Kitty, Ltd., a firm that planned to make protein crackers that, in part, used the carcasses from high-kill animal shelters as a base source, will just have to stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
On a wingnut blog, I was faced with the Lapierre logic that Obama is planning to confiscate all guns... and the proof is that he hasn't done anything at all, with regard to gun regulation. (Except relax it, a bit.)
This logic made it clear that Romney's plans involve lighting all babies on fire. And I have proof!
>If someone wants to keep that stuff private, then there is one thing they can do: Not run for office.
All Presidential candidates file a financial disclosure statement. That's the law, and he has complied with the law. His taxes have -zero- to do with the horrible shape this country is in. 40+ months of 8%+ unemployment and all the Democrats want to do is talk about Romney's tax returns. I guess I would too if I were them.
Sure, we can talk about that. We can talk about how the Republicans only give a shit bout the deficit when they are out of office.
We can talk about how Paul Ryan voted to bust the deficit by voting for the Bush tax cuts, for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (with no move to fund them other than deficit spending), for Medicare part D and for the TARP bailout.
When we fought WW2, taxes went up and people were exhorted to join the Army and they conserved resources. When Bush launched his "Global Wr on Terror", there was no move to encourage people to join the military (no small wonder, what with all the kids of those chickenhawks out partying), no move to raise revenues to pay for the wars-- Bush's idea on how to support the troops was "go shopping".
Not to mention when Reagan took office, the deficit was under a trillion dollars. 12 years later, it was quadrupled. It only went up a bit (by comparison) under Clinton and he left office with an annual budget surplus. The Republicans wrecked that, because despite their bleatings to the contrary, the last thing those fuckers want is a fiscally responsible government.
That is the GOP record on deficits. So yes, we can talk about how the GOP, for the last 32 years, has been intent on deliberately sabotaging our government.
Paul Ryan should not be running for Veep. He should be in an orange jumpsuit in a black prison somewhere, facing a charge of treason.
Comrade, I completely agree with you and add all the deficits to which the Democrats contributed. I give a crap about every year of deficit spending because I think it is completely immoral. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
If we sell $100B in 10-year Treasury notes to "stimulate our economy" that will be $100B that has to be repaid to the Japanese or Chinese in 2022. Sure it feels good now, because we get to pump $100B into OUR economy, but 10 years down the road, that's $100B taken out of THEIR economy to repay the loan. Why do we deserve a "good" economy at the expense of theirs?
WE DESERVE THE (FAILED) ECONOMY THAT WE HAVE. Our successors do not. Let us not shackle them with more debt to get out from under. Let us balance our budget now, by increasing taxes on everyone and lowering spending on everyone, until we pay off OUR bar tab.
Really? Increase taxes? I'll believe that when I see it. The last Republican who tried that was ridden out of DC on a rail.
I agree that taxes need to go back to where they were in 1999, if not 1980. And unearned income should be taxed right with wage-earning income.
How about we compromise and say 1987. Oh wait a minute, we're not supposed to compromise.
100% agree on unearned income.
Here's where I come from: In EVERY year since I became eligible to vote (32 years ago) we have found some excuse to spend more than we take in. Yes, even in the vaunted Gingrich/Clinton years, there was NO surplus. Don't believe me? Look at the national debt by year from the Treasury Dept: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm Notice how it goes up EVERY year?
So my point is, I, along with everyone else, have been getting too much in the way of government services and paying too little for it my ENTIRE ADULT LIFE! Did I agree with the programs under which the money was spent? Not all of them. Heck, probably not most of them, but the fact remains WE put these rascals in office, they represented us, and by extension, we have maxed out our credit cards. It sure was fun while it lasted, but unless we write a new law concerning national bankruptcy, it is all going to have to be paid back.
That's where WE come in. WE need to elect leaders that will make the tough choices to pay off the debt that WE have racked up. Our kids are going to have to help us, maybe even out grand kids. Regardless, we need to start the PAINFUL process of re-paying our debt while we are alive, because we sure did enjoy the benefits.
Sorry if it's too wordy.
That is not going to happen until the GOP gorws a spine and disowns the Club for Greed and somebody "retires" Grover Norquist.
Top tax rate in 1987 was 38.5%. That's not going to get it done. If slashing social services is on the table, then the pain of fixing the Federal budget cannot land solely on the backs of the poor, those who worked low-end jobs (and who, as a result, have to rely on SSI) and veterans. 38.5% is less than it was prior to the Bush Tax Giveaway.
Everybody gets to suffer, including the rich.
Post a Comment