Best Time to Release Romney's Tax Returns

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

People who are struggling to pay their rent, mortgages or fill up the gas tank are wondering why Mitt gets to keep more of his money than them.

Maybe they should be wondering why they want four more years of the Obama Economy? They want four more years of the past four years? Really?

The change theme will only take hold if people think the alternative will do a better job. (see 2004).

That will be the function of the debates, as was the case with Reagan in 1980.

People just need to know Romney is a safe alternative. Once that happens, and I think it will happen during the debates, it's lights out for Obama. There is no other result. Not with this economy. Not after these past four years. You said it yourself: Too many people are struggling. A recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. A heck of a lot of people, across every state, are in a recession or a depression.

There's two problems with that belief; Obama's not Carter and Romney's not Reagan. Reagan stood for something, he didn't run on platitudes. He had substance and people liked him. Carter wasn't well liked by people, he wasn't charismatic and was pretty bad at speeches and debating. That's the complete opposite for Obama. Style wise, Obama is more like Reagan and Romney, Carter.
And don't expect Romney to just be able to knock Obama out with the "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" question. Chicago already has an answer to that and will turn it back around on The  Rominee with something like "Under Who Will You And Your Family Be Better Of 4 Years From Now?"

[Politico]

There is one serious flaw with your proposed strategy, Politico.  It assumes the August jobs report will be bad for Obama.

500,000 jobs are not going to appear out of the blue. It's going to be dismal or really dismal. Even if it is a slight improvement over last month, it is still not enough to keep pace with population growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe.

[Politico]

People who are struggling to pay their rent, mortgages or fill up the gas tank are wondering why Mitt gets to keep more of his money than them.

Maybe they should be wondering why they want four more years of the Obama Economy? They want four more years of the past four years? Really?

The change theme will only take hold if people think the alternative will do a better job. (see 2004).

That will be the function of the debates, as was the case with Reagan in 1980.

People just need to know Romney is a safe alternative. Once that happens, and I think it will happen during the debates, it's lights out for Obama. There is no other result. Not with this economy. Not after these past four years. You said it yourself: Too many people are struggling. A recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. A heck of a lot of people, across every state, are in a recession or a depression.

There's two problems with that belief; Obama's not Carter and Romney's not Reagan. Reagan stood for something, he didn't run on platitudes. He had substance and people liked him. Carter wasn't well liked by people, he wasn't charismatic and was pretty bad at speeches and debating. That's the complete opposite for Obama. Style wise, Obama is more like Reagan and Romney, Carter.
And don't expect Romney to just be able to knock Obama out with the "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" question. Chicago already has an answer to that and will turn it back around on The  Rominee with something like "Under Who Will You And Your Family Be Better Of 4 Years From Now?"

Actually, I quite prefer Romney going with the "a recession is when your neighbor is...a depression is when you..." line from the Reagan archive. There is not much Obama can say other than, "at least Washington, DC has been stimulated by my stimulus, and I just need one more chance to set it right!"

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/mitt-romney-2010-tax-unrelated-business_n_1798152.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

The Plot Thickens...

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

People who are struggling to pay their rent, mortgages or fill up the gas tank are wondering why Mitt gets to keep more of his money than them.

Maybe they should be wondering why they want four more years of the Obama Economy? They want four more years of the past four years? Really?

The change theme will only take hold if people think the alternative will do a better job. (see 2004).

That will be the function of the debates, as was the case with Reagan in 1980.

People just need to know Romney is a safe alternative. Once that happens, and I think it will happen during the debates, it's lights out for Obama. There is no other result. Not with this economy. Not after these past four years. You said it yourself: Too many people are struggling. A recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. A heck of a lot of people, across every state, are in a recession or a depression.

There's two problems with that belief; Obama's not Carter and Romney's not Reagan. Reagan stood for something, he didn't run on platitudes. He had substance and people liked him. Carter wasn't well liked by people, he wasn't charismatic and was pretty bad at speeches and debating. That's the complete opposite for Obama. Style wise, Obama is more like Reagan and Romney, Carter.
And don't expect Romney to just be able to knock Obama out with the "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" question. Chicago already has an answer to that and will turn it back around on The  Rominee with something like "Under Who Will You And Your Family Be Better Of 4 Years From Now?"

Actually, I quite prefer Romney going with the "a recession is when your neighbor is...a depression is when you..." line from the Reagan archive. There is not much Obama can say other than, "at least Washington, DC has been stimulated by my stimulus, and I just need one more chance to set it right!"

But then Obama could counter with "Crazy is doing the same thing over and over and then expecting a different result. We tried your plan and that's what got us here. Austerity isnt working for Europe, i doubt it will work here. We need a balanced approach. It worked for us in the 90s, and it'll work now."

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He won't release them because there's campaign-ending sh*t there.

I have to agree. If they merely showed the Romney paid a 13% tax rate, they would have been released long ago.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He won't release them because there's campaign-ending sh*t there.

See, Romney supporters? This is the sh*t we need to kill by releasing these motherf'ing returns, and sooner rather than later.

Romney would not have released the dossier to McCain's camp if the above claim were true. We all know that. It is, one, just common sense (If Romney had anything in his background that was "campaign-ending," he never would have ran for president to begin with). The McCain camp did not ask for 20-something years of returns. Two, if the returns had "campaign-ending sh*t" we know somebody in the McCain camp would have leaked the dossier last year to kill Romney's chances in 2012, and pave the way for somebody else they work for.

Us politicos understand what I am saying, but the public at large is duped by Reid, et al.'s nonsense. All the Democrats have in 2012 is "attack and blame." So much for "hope and change."

You're neglecting the possibility that Romney accepted the IRS amnesty for a tax-evading Swiss-bank account in 2009. If he did so, the relevant information would not have been in returns vetted by the McCain campaign.

[LastVoter]

He won't release them because there's campaign-ending sh*t there.

See, Romney supporters? This is the sh*t we need to kill by releasing these motherf'ing returns, and sooner rather than later.

Romney would not have released the dossier to McCain's camp if the above claim were true. We all know that. It is, one, just common sense (If Romney had anything in his background that was "campaign-ending," he never would have ran for president to begin with). The McCain camp did not ask for 20-something years of returns. Two, if the returns had "campaign-ending sh*t" we know somebody in the McCain camp would have leaked the dossier last year to kill Romney's chances in 2012, and pave the way for somebody else they work for.

Us politicos understand what I am saying, but the public at large is duped by Reid, et al.'s nonsense. All the Democrats have in 2012 is "attack and blame." So much for "hope and change."

Edwards...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He won't release them because there's campaign-ending sh*t there.

See, Romney supporters? This is the sh*t we need to kill by releasing these motherf'ing returns, and sooner rather than later.

Romney would not have released the dossier to McCain's camp if the above claim were true. We all know that. It is, one, just common sense (If Romney had anything in his background that was "campaign-ending," he never would have ran for president to begin with). The McCain camp did not ask for 20-something years of returns. Two, if the returns had "campaign-ending sh*t" we know somebody in the McCain camp would have leaked the dossier last year to kill Romney's chances in 2012, and pave the way for somebody else they work for.

Us politicos understand what I am saying, but the public at large is duped by Reid, et al.'s nonsense. All the Democrats have in 2012 is "attack and blame." So much for "hope and change."

You're neglecting the possibility that Romney accepted the IRS amnesty for a tax-evading Swiss-bank account in 2009. If he did so, the relevant information would not have been in returns vetted by the McCain campaign.

Of course McCain didn't pick him. One can only speculate about what is in his returns that he won't release to the American people. Often a mortgage will require more years of tax returns than Romney thinks that the Presidency requires.

One thing we do know for sure though, is that Ryan wants to eliminate capital gains taxes so that Romney pays 0%.

[Politico]

He won't release them because there's campaign-ending sh*t there.

See, Romney supporters? This is the sh*t we need to kill by releasing these motherf'ing returns, and sooner rather than later.

Romney would not have released the dossier to McCain's camp if the above claim were true. We all know that. It is, one, just common sense (If Romney had anything in his background that was "campaign-ending," he never would have ran for president to begin with). The McCain camp did not ask for 20-something years of returns. Two, if the returns had "campaign-ending sh*t" we know somebody in the McCain camp would have leaked the dossier last year to kill Romney's chances in 2012, and pave the way for somebody else they work for.

Us politicos understand what I am saying, but the public at large is duped by Reid, et al.'s nonsense. All the Democrats have in 2012 is "attack and blame." So much for "hope and change."

Edwards...

It didn't kill Clinton's chances, so he thought it wouldn't kill his chances either.

[minionofmidas]

...is past.

[Likely Voter]

Romney continues to be hammered for paying a low rate, using tax shelters and hiding returns. What could be worse than that? He has admitted to being audited. I suspect that sometime in recent years he was audited and some tax shelter or technique he used didn't pass muster with the IRS and he had to pay up. That is essentially what happened with Marriott when they were hit with the "son of BOSS" thing while Romney headed the audit committee.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

People who are struggling to pay their rent, mortgages or fill up the gas tank are wondering why Mitt gets to keep more of his money than them.

Maybe they should be wondering why they want four more years of the Obama Economy? They want four more years of the past four years? Really?

The change theme will only take hold if people think the alternative will do a better job. (see 2004).

That will be the function of the debates, as was the case with Reagan in 1980.

People just need to know Romney is a safe alternative. Once that happens, and I think it will happen during the debates, it's lights out for Obama. There is no other result. Not with this economy. Not after these past four years. You said it yourself: Too many people are struggling. A recession is when your neighbor is out of work; a depression is when you are out of work. A heck of a lot of people, across every state, are in a recession or a depression.

There's two problems with that belief; Obama's not Carter and Romney's not Reagan. Reagan stood for something, he didn't run on platitudes. He had substance and people liked him. Carter wasn't well liked by people, he wasn't charismatic and was pretty bad at speeches and debating. That's the complete opposite for Obama. Style wise, Obama is more like Reagan and Romney, Carter.
And don't expect Romney to just be able to knock Obama out with the "Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago?" question. Chicago already has an answer to that and will turn it back around on The  Rominee with something like "Under Who Will You And Your Family Be Better Of 4 Years From Now?"

Also, if you asked most Americans "are you better off now than you were four years ago," I'm pretty sure the answer would be yes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is one serious flaw with your proposed strategy, Politico.  It assumes the August jobs report will be bad for Obama.

500,000 jobs are not going to appear out of the blue. It's going to be dismal or really dismal. Even if it is a slight improvement over last month, it is still not enough to keep pace with population growth.

A slight improvement is all Obama needs to be fairly assured of victory.  For all the talk of how unemployment remains over 8%, that's not the case in all of the the swing states:

Colorado: 8.3%
Florida: 8.8%
Iowa: 5.3%
New Hampshire: 5.4%
Ohio: 7.2%
Wisconsin: 7.3%
Virginia: 5.9%
Nevada: 12.0%

Both Florida and Nevada (and to a lesser extent Colorado) know full well that their economic problems stem from the unsustainable housing bubble that burst under Bush's watch.  They weren't going to rebound quickly no matter who was President, tho not all voters would be aware of that.

Virginia's economy is doing reasonably well, which is why Obama is likely to win that swing state.

[Torie]

...is past.

I might add that I would release all my tax returns back to 1977 when I began filing. I made a pact with myself at some point in my life. When I am making choices how to proceed, I ask myself, if it became public knowledge, would I be embarrassed and ashamed?  If the answer is yes, I just don't do it, even if it is to my advantage to do it, and even if the odds of it coming to light are slim to none. I have enough challenges in life, without having to carry that kind of sh**t around in my head, and in my heart.