Check out this AP story:
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning – suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign….
Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press….
Several U.S. Securities and Exchange documents from the late 1990s and 2000s depicted Romney as Sankaty’s owner at the time, but when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2001 and 2002, Romney did not list the company on annual disclosure forms required by the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission.
The ethics commission would not comment on the omissions. Boston College law professor R. Michael Cassidy, who was a member of the commission at the time, said that if Romney “owned this business before he signed his ethics disclosure, then he was obliged to report it.” The state’s disclosure rules also allow a $1,000 minimum threshold. A six-year statute of limitations covering Romney’s ethics reports has since expired.
Bermuda legal documents show that on Jan. 1, 2003, the day before Romney was sworn in as governor, his wife’s trust acquired 12,000 shares of Sankaty. The transfer was not made public.
It’s not entirely clear, of course, exactly what Sankaty was for, though it seems reasonably clear that it was used as some sort of conduit in a bunch of Bain deals. In particular:
Romney’s use of Sankaty as his partnership stake in Bain deals is documented in several U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reports between 1998 and 2000. The company controlled 50,000 shares of Global-Tech Appliances Inc., a Chinese appliance firm that Bain briefly invested in. Sankaty was also used to manage 385,000 shares in the 1999 takeover of Domino’s, as well as the $75 million investment into the Stericycle waste disposal firm and a $150 million investment in the US LEC telecommunication firm.
Romney was named as sole owner and president of Sankaty in several of those documents. Though no longer active at Bain by then because he had left to head Salt Lake City’s Olympic Games bid, Romney remained a participant because of his partnership stake.
Stericycle is an especially sensitive topic for reasons that quickly become apparent from, say, this story. But from the local perspective, the really interesting question is why Romney thought it advisable to transfer ownership of Sankaty to his wife one day before being sworn in as Governor. Since the statute of limitations on violations of the ethics laws during Romney’s governorship has apparently expired, we’ll probably never know.
If you want to learn more about Romney’s byzantine and fascinating offshore investment portfolio, do not miss this Vanity Fair report. Joan Vennochi reminds us of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s immortal line: “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me.” Never is that more obvious than when you’re reading something like that Vanity Fair story.
That’s just sloppy writing there, David. Purposefully fatalistic and misleading as well?
You’re a lawyer. You know what statute of limitations are for and their importance to the justice system. You do a disservice to the that system when you imply that the statute of limitations rules are being abused or manipulated to protect Romney.
The fact is that “Pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, § 4(c), the Ethics Commission has five years from the date the Commission learned of the alleged violation, but not more than six years from the date of the last conduct relating to the alleged violation, to issue an Order to Show Cause, which starts public proceedings against an individual”
That’s the law. That’s longer than the statute of limitations for many other crimes but if you think it should be longer you should make that argument. But please don’t just throw out legal terminology paired with “apparantly” vague statements that suggest some complex legal cover-up is in the works.
I didn’t “imply” anything along the lines of statutes of limitations being “abused” or “manipulated.” That’s all you.
I just see a presentation of the facts as David understands them. I think ultimately he is making a political argument, certainly debatable, that despite the statute of limitations it would be good for Romney to disclose.
This episode provides more evidence that Mitt Romney is a predator and bully, and a dishonest one at that — he is Eddie Haskell.
I don’t doubt that the statute of limitations has expired, and with all due respect to theloquaciousliberal, I don’t think it matters much — the political impact of all this SHOULD greatly exceed any legal consequences. I suspect an aggressive media investigation (if there ever is one) will be more effective than any discovery process at uncovering what really happened.
Perhaps some Democratic PAC might start rerunning some fifteen second clips of Eddie Haskell. They might alternative those with clips of Mr. Romney on his JetSki.
Anytime you mention “byzantine” the American voter glosses over, especially when you talk about personal finances.
Remember when Clinton was running the first time and that whole issue came to light about Hillary investing a small amount of money in futures and magically (for an novice investor, or indeed any investor) scoring big, and then it turning out that there was no way to tell if the person in the investment involved steered $100K to her in a way that was impossible to detect? No?
How about when some of Reagan’s close associates had him buy a piece of property, and then a short time later a movie studio bought it for 10x what he paid for it. News to you as well?
Both of these bits of info were out during their respective campaigns.
Americans don’t understand how mortgages work, let alone this stuff.
Not an issue.
were Mitt Romney. Hiding money (from the Ethics Commission & the public) in offshore accounts cuts much closer to Romney’s weaknesses. One of his biggest self-describes qualifications in success in the private sector (making money), the story of his money is more important than for most. He also doesn’t have the whole separate persona know to the public that Reagan had. Besides, that futures thing did hurt Hillary at the time, it was much easier to understand and seemed more real than Whitewater- though now it is almost like a strength as more evidence of her perseverance.
Anyone here not voting for John Kerry because of the whole docking the $7 million yacht in Rhode Island?
People know the rich do these kinds of things. If Romney did something illegal (which I highly doubt he would be that stupid) it would be a big deal. If not, this goes nowhere.
So what about all the US corporations with unrepatriated profits overseas? Disloyal? Unfair? You see how fast that issue disappeared off the news radar, and how reluctant the government was to make it an issue.
is the accumulation of this kind of stuff.
A single story can cause serious problems for a politician (e.g. Tierney, Murray), but it can also be harmful by giving a bad impression of him. The impression of Romney is that of a flip-flopper and a phony and not one of “The Great American Us.” This story strengthens and prolongs this impression.
These stories keep popping up, and any given week, the average person is reminded of this impression.
Merrimackguy is right, Democrats who are rich get a pass every day here. John Kerry is uber rich and the infamous yacht not being built in the USA, not providing US jobs and then trying to get out of paying MA taxes would have skewered a Republican but Kerry probably isn’t lose a single Democratic vote.
I think the Dems can keep trying to hold this against Mitt, even tot he point of the media lying and misconstruing Romney as when MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchel took Romney’s remarks out of context in her job of carrying water for Obama.
Keep trying David, but remember how many Dems are rich (Obama, Deval, Kerry, the US Senate…)
I agree that Kerry would get attacked for his wealth much more in MA if he were a Republican, but then again Kerry ran for President and lost so maybe he is not such a great example if you are trying to argue that the perception that a candidate’s lifestyle of wealth and privilege may not negatively influence voters.
We aren’t debating whether Romney is going to get votes from his own party after all, but whether his various issues with his extreme wealth (many, many times that of Obama who also did not grow up rich like Romney) and lifestyle will turn off Independents. Stuff like this simply can’t help him. As long as he keeps details of his investments secret he is going to be susceptible to charges that he his hiding something embarrassing. I don’t think that Romney is going to come off well if Obama brings up Romney’s “secret offshore accounts” in a debate, because there is simply no way to answer that charge in a way that is going to appeal to anyone who is undecided at that point.
not against the rich or people being rich.
Most of us think they should pay significantly more in taxes. We don’t like the fact that money has corrupted our politics. We don’t like the fact that some rich people like Romney have no understanding of how the 99% live. Kerry may not have much of an understanding of us either, but as we see it, he votes our interests. That’s why Kerry gets a pass from Democrats.
But you guys have managed to work in a red herring, upon which, John, you perseverate, and a straw man in one comment. Kerry’s not the topic. Romney is. We are Democrats, not Communists.
C’mon guys, can’t you critique your own candidate? Or is it too painful?
The problem with Romney and his money is that his business/financial experience is the entire rationale for his candidacy. John Kerry never claimed that the process that enriched him and his family was somehow going to create loads of jobs for everyone else and improve the economy.
Romney is claiming that the same process that enriched him beyond most people’s wildest imaginations is actually good for all of us. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, that seems somewhat dubious. As far as I can tell, it’s been fabulously good for him and his friends but not so much for the average worker.
Mitt Romney goes to some mansion and says everyone ought to be able to live like this. Really, Mitt? Are we going to pay school teachers and firefighters and police enough money for them to buy multi-million-dollar homes, or do we simply not need those people in our society? It’s because of things like this that Mitt’s wealth matters.
Who is Mitt besides a wealthy guy? I don’t know. I had a basic idea of who John Kerry was, despite the “flip-flopping” charges. I don’t know who Mitt Romney is besides a wealthy CEO. Maybe that’s because I still remember the guy who said he was going to be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy, who was pro-choice, and who was proud of health care reform that included a mandate to buy insurance or a fee/tax if you didn’t. Where’d he go?
Poeple like you hate guys like Mitt b/c they are financialy successful in life. Why would John Kerry claim any knowledge of how to create jobs, i mean real jobs in the private sector, when his claim to fame is marrying a rich widow? Did Ted Kennedy have any clue how the 99% live?
Unlike most career politicians, Romney made his money the old fashion way, he earned it and you can’t stand it, can you? Do teachers, police and fire personal get drafted or do they apply for the job knowing what,the pay scale is?
What gay rights are u talking about? In 2002, he said in a debate with O’Brien he was against both gay marriage and civil unions. In 94, were gays fighting for marriage equality or simple rights like seeing a loved one at a hospital?
Where is the old Obama who promised to end earmarks, close GITMO and scolded Hillary for supporting mandates, which he opposed. And then Obama grants waivers to Obamacare like its going out of style. Obama outsourced the stimulus to Pelosi and Reid and look where we are today. Where did the 2004 Obama guy go?
.
Thank you
… or, from what I can tell, anything about why people might find the idea of making large gobs of money from companies they drive into bankruptcy somewhat odious, yet be intellectually sophisticated enough to understand that there are plenty of other, highly constructive ways to earn a lot of money that are worthy of respect .
The “people like you hate” phrase is utterly unacceptable to me. You are breathtakingly ignorant about me, my attitudes and who I do or don’t “hate” or what I can or can’t “stand.”
I’ve worked at a company founded by someone on the Forbes list of richest Americans, and I have nothing but the deepest respect for him because he created something — yes, lots of jobs as well as personal wealth — instead of making money by sucking the life blood out of existing corporations. To imply that I hate people who are “financially successful in life” is a personal insult.
So spew on as you wish here, danfromwaltham, but this is the last time I’ll be responding to your posts. I am willing to engage with people both online and in my in-person life who disagree with me, but civility and personal respect are non-negotiable.
Made globs of money driving companies into BK? Really, that is all Mitt did? Oh wait, Mitt is a member of the Cohen family in Twilight, but he sucks blood out of companies, I mean you wrote that so it must be true.
I am sure you just love people with globs of money, so long as they made it the correct way, in your eyes. Just remember, pension funds (hello retired police, fire, & teachers) and endowments invested monies in this evil empire known as Bain Capital. Shall we call these beneficiaries ticks since Mitt is the vampire?
This is again a sad bag of useless ad hominems that advance no argument. Do you say things because we don’t dislike you enough?
It’s sad that you think you’re clever.
Were you hoping people forgot?
Anyone remember Steve Pagliuca’s Senate campaign? How about John Connally? Voters don’t like candidates identified as rich first and anything else second. Maybe the name Meg Whitman rings a bell, if you’re not familiar with the first two. Romney needs to be a sensible alternative to Barack Obama first, and rich second, or he’ll have a hard time winning the swing states. This kind of story hurts him badly in that regard, which is why it’s at the top of the front page, but your discomfort is noted and appreciated. 🙂
We love successful people who “make it”. Maybe we have problems with those who marry it (John Kerry) and then act like they made it themselves but generally Americans want to be those rich people.
It’s not about how rich he is, but hiding your resources from the tax man is neither fair nor loyal.
That is a lot of money this country is losing out on! For the record I’m less upset about state border hopping. The focus the media or public give a story is not necessarily an indication of the attention it SHOULD get, plus for Romney it just fits the narrative too well.
If I read the AP excerpt correctly, the only potential wrong would have been IF Romney owned the company after he signed and filed the ethics report. That means we have a huge loophole in the ethics law (of course we do) that allows someone to hide an asset by simply giving it to your spouse!!!!!
when they controlled the House, Senate and POTUS?
…this was a state ethics law…so your rhetorical question should be aimed at the evil Dems in MA…
BTW, apparently you feel that Democrats should be the ones to closes ethics loopholes, I assume you recognize that this trait is not part of the GOP DNA, so why bother asking it about Republicans…
love people like us when they make it.
You know, like the prep school sons of governors who dress up like state police and cut gay hippies hair when they’re young, imprison their dogs on their car roofs for long car rides and rape and dismember companies for profit as adults, then hide their money in secret bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. That’s not to mention we like politicians who will espouse any belief in order to be elected President.
AS for the loophole, I agree that both parties are guilty of not fixing the system(s). I contact my politicians on a regular basis (met with McGovern about 2 weeks ago and complained strongly about campaign financing regarding BOTH parties). I guess I just take exception when Democrats complain about Republicans using laws/loopholes which Democrats could fix anytime they want… but for some unknown reason “like they use the loopholes themselves”, they don’t. Maybe Rep. Tierney could weigh in on this loophole!
There’s legal “wrong”, as in something you get prosecuted for doing, and there’s political “wrong”, as in something that’s going to hurt during a campaign.
I don’t doubt that Mr. Romney’s careful efforts to hide ENORMOUS wealth in off-shore accounts all met the letter of the law. I’m sure he paid an army of accountants and lawyers good money to ensure that.
Nevertheless, all this epitomizes the “Eddie Haskell” greed and self-centeredness that made Mitt Romney a terrible governor and that make him a disaster as a presidential candidate.
Romney apparently profited from abortions.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec
At one point Romney owned stock in Nike which made the sinkers used by the shoe bomber… and he also owned stock in Koch Industries which own Koch Fertilizer whose fertilizer “could have” been used by the Oklahoma City bombing. You must play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon a lot…
for all those who killed themselves at Heaven’s Gate b/c they all wore Nike sneakers in their attempt to hitch a ride on the comet.
Some of the anti-abortion people objected to his involvement in Stericycle, but neither Mother Jones nor I are particularly concerned.
You guys aren’t big on clicking on hyperlinks.
that’s why I commented as I did.
Why do you keep repeating the supposed idea that we hate rich people? As you point out there are rich Dems and Dem supporters. I have a problem with the WAY Romney got rich, not being rich per se. I also want rich to pay their share of taxes regardless of which party said rich align with. Sure people want to be rich, but I’m with Harry Truman who said if you want to live like a Republican, you had better vote Democrat.
It has been a long time since the Dems actually effectively controlled House, Senate, and White House, another thing you bring up when you should know better.
Manufacturers and their shareholders are not responsible for their products being misused. Stericycle, however, was directly linked to the practice of abortion. Most of us are pro-choice and therefore don’t have a problem with it, but it goes to the discomfort with abortion on the other side and either hypocrisy or flip-flopping on Romney’s part depending on how you look at it.
All in all, very trollish this morning:(
are beloved by the left because they say, no wait, they insist that pay more in taxes. This is how people like Christopher vote for Kerry or a Kennedy or buy Barbara Streisand music. Sort of like buying protection and cover. Buffet does the same thing.
When you and the Occupy movement talk about the 1%ers, do you have a caveat that the invective is only directed at the “way they got rich” and if they “pay their share of taxes”? Soros made his billions from Hedge Funds… is that ok? Did he pay his “fair share” or did he pull a Kerry and just follow all the rules? I would say 99% of the 1%ers follow all the rules, they have too much to lose otherwise (other than Charley Rangel).
Stericycle is no different than Waste Management and I am sure we wouldn’t blame Waste Management management for picking up trash at companies who we don’t like (or don’t like their practices).
How many people here have defended George Soros? I invite you to offer links to commentary here that does so. Of COURSE some of us demand that the 1% “pay their share of taxes” — do you have a problem with that?
If you’ll recall, it was the RIGHT WING who objected to Stericycle. I’m guessing that most of us agree with you that “Stericycle is no different than Waste Management”.
I think people who are already wealthy who use that extraordinary wealth to coerce even more from those who they’ve already destroyed are despicable. I don’t “hate” them — I think they are predators who are destroying the culture and society that all of us depend on.
You sound like those who complain “You hate Catholics” when somebody insists that priests who sexually abuse children ought to be stopped.
Just as most of us are able to separate individual abusers from the larger group of “Catholics”, so too are most of us able to separate individual predators from the larger group of “wealthy”.
Unless, of course, it is YOU who argue that all wealthy people are predators.
I’m with you on the priest thing even though I do believe there are quite a few anti-catholics out there.
The wealthy people thing… how do we quantify their behavior. As I had tried to say/ask, we all use tax deductions when we do our taxes so shouldn’t anon be able to use legitimate tax deductions? Obama gives money to charities and takes the allowable tax deduction for doing that, is that ok? Shouldn’t he be allowed to do that? How come we can sit and pick the legitimate deductions but then call them loopholes if it’s a business/activity we don’t engage in therefore it’s wrong.
I don’t know if you were part of the Occupy movement but I saw no delineation of their hatred for the 1% era, none. Nor do I see George Soros criticized by Occupiers or here for that matter (yes, I interpret silence as support).
BTW, people need to stop thinking Republicans are all rich, we aren’t. We don’t own oil companies, Hedge funds, factories… we are regular people working in everyday jobs like everyone else. We just happen to think we all have individual responsibilities instead of being given everything.
The Internal Revenue Code did not just come down to us from on high. Do you really think it’s impossible to distinguish as a matter of policy, as a matter of morals, or as a matter of political acceptability between one provision of the IRC and another? And do you really think that the test of what’s acceptable for a political candidate to do, tax-wise, is mere legality?
Like the famous aphorism about pornography (“I know it when I see it”), the “wealthy people thing” is easy enough to see, for those who prepared to make the distinction (some people, after all, do watch pornography).
A person — never mind presidential candidate — who structures his affairs so that he can pass ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS tax-free to his progeny while the rest of us worry about whether an aging parent’s gift of ten thousand dollars to their grandchildren will trigger a gift tax is a self-centered and greedy. Now we know that that same person is hiding untold millions of dollars in secret off-shore bank accounts, tax havens, and fictitious companies.
Can he legally get away with it? No doubt. Should this disqualify him from holding the office he seeks? I think so.
You and JohnD Rockefeller must be looking for RedMassGroup where they can beat on well-healed lefties until the cows come home.
Red Mass Group languishes with two users at a time. I’ve never posted or commented there, but I check it occasionally. There are usually two people (one is usually me) logged on and no one’s commenting.
Why do you conservatives post here instead of there?
Thanks
If 20 people with the same views talk back and forth without any dissenting views, doesn’t it get a little boring. It does for me. I like posting here because I like to hear what the other sie thinks AND what the other side thinks of my views. I’ll even admit that I learn a lot here about issues and have even changed my views on some subject because facts were presented to me which I hadn’t known about. That’s why I don’t watch shows like Hannity, Beck… since they are far too partisan. I do watch shows like ED, Maddow every so often so I can try to understand how the dastardly far left thinks sometimes, although I usually get too infuriated. I love Morning Joe the best because it’s as close to a fair and honest debate as TV gets, although Joe is usually outflanked 3-1 by liberals. Maddow, Ed and Larry O’donnel would be wise to try to get informed differing options on their shows so they aren’t the echo chamber you seem to want BMG to be.
some dissenting views. You often provide them. Often, however, the “views” if you can call them that, are a waste of time. That’s why I pointed out your red herrings and straw men. Most “views” you speak of, don’t answer the question.
Like on this comment, you assume I want BMG to be an echo chamber. I don’t. But now I have to waste time discussing–not why you guys don’t post at RMG, which is what I asked–but why I think BMG should be an echo chamber, which I don’t.
I have benefited from engaging you in conversation. I think I’ve said that before. But on this thread, you haven’t said anything worth responding to. Your signal to noise ratio is high. I don’t want to spend time correcting your assumptions about what I or Democrats believe. It doesn’t make me any better.
I think I’ve answered that about three billion times.
Arguing with johnd is sometimes like arguing with a deck of cards: nothing one writes has any effect. For example, even if he disagreed with my objections, you might expect him to engage them. But no.
*
This is why I think BMG needs better conservatives. They really exist. For example I’m often impressed that Ross Douthat of the New York Times can consistently disagree with and understand liberal positions. For example, he has clearly read liberal thought leaders like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein. Do we think johnd or Dan have ever read Yglesias or Klein? Evidence says no.
Stupidity really doesn’t have to be a prerequisite for being a conservative.
It may be hard to attract better Conservatives to BMG. I think they like the discussions but ultimately it leads to name calling and verbal assaults.
Stupidity??? Really? “behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment” How do you measure these attributes? Lack of good sense in financial matters? Business matters? Intellectual matters? Legal/moral matters?
Pardon me for assuming this, but I do think BMG is a better place because of me, even if the result is one of you feeling even stronger about their convictions.
I know there are better Conservatives out there (and better Liberals BTW), but we got what we got. Do you think Ross Douthat will post here?
How likely is it for anyone to say, “I think BMG is a worse place because of me.” Maybe someone clinically depressed? Well, I’m glad you’ve recovered.
*
John, I am responding to your saying the same thing over and over three billion times as if we were not in a discussion. I make exactly the same objection to liberals on this site who do the same thing. And yes, things will degenerate into name calling if you treat this as a bulletin board for your views rather than a discussion.
BTW, check some of the other posters here, we do repeat ourselves from time. Have you heard anyone say the rich need to “share the burden”? How about Romney is a flip-flopper? We all have to pay our “fair share”?
So, sometimes things get repeated, so what? Sometimes people make a point one week and I may respond… then two weeks later a new person makes the same point and I respond again (with the same response). It’s new to them but not to you. And this can happen over months…
Like I said, check our your brethren here and tell me every remark from the writers is a new idea or novel comment. Isn’t there a benefit to “repeated messaging” staying “on-point”.
By this point of time, I would expect an ideological opponent whom I respected to be able to reproduce, understand, and respond to liberal protestations that we don’t hate rich people. I would expect an ideological opponent whom I didn’t respect to just keep repeating that liberals hate rich people.
Or to turn it around, I don’t think being a liberal excuses one from understanding conservative positions. And, as liberal Steven J. Gulitti may know by now, I don’t regard derision as a substitute for understanding. I apply exactly the same standard to you as I applied to him.
*
If you want to keep discussing something, your challenge is to advance the discussion and not to repeat the discussion.
n/t
…”I hate rich people”?
The woman whom Rep Frank compared to a dining room table did start with an outlandish claim that there was something Nazi-like about policies Mr Frank had supported. It seems perfectly fair to me to claim that some views — because of their unpopularity and absurdity — merit being treated dismissively.
before I dismiss myself. I think I am above that type of rhetoric.
BMG is often better because of you. That doesn’t go for all the BMG conservatives. For a while, you were one of the few people regularly writing diaries on BMG. That was a while back.
My respect for you went up when you mentioned that you did some volunteer work in schools. Anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone does something constructive in a civic manner.
To me, the problem is the signal to noise ratio. For some commenters, it is too skewed. For example, I don’t want to read insults about me living in lala land from someone citing Michelle Malkin. After I put in a lot of work to bring something to the table, I don’t want to see the thread hijacked (I noticed you graciously participated in getting things back on track). It’s not worth sorting through the detritus that to get to something worth discussing.
I do have a big heart and I actually “DO” a lot. My latest mission is working on a “sharp disposal” program in my town since the state is changing the law on how residents can dispose of sharps (I will be writing a diary about this soon).
Unfortunately, I also have a big mouth and a strong opinion. When I have the time I do try to comment “intelligently” about things… when I don’t I usually just opine about things. Kbusch has recently called me out on this and I will begrudgingly acknowledge that I sometimes will simply comment on things without doing the footwork of finding facts to support my “opinions”. Viceral responses feel good and require little work, but they usually are backed by “feelings”.
I have often said “progressive improvement is better than delayed perfection” so I will try…
You’ve been a much pleasanter presence here than 2 years ago.
and never denied that I was foolish, rude and obnoxious. No matter how old I get, I never stop learning. We are still on very distant ends of spectrums, and I have given you credit for your wisdom, but we think very differently Kbusch. Sorry for being so uncivil in the past. And sorry that you are so wrong on so many issues 🙂
before. It’s hard to avoid online.
I thought your comment above “Why do you conservatives post here instead of there?” was your way of telling us Conservatives to go away.
Sorry my remarks defending Romney have not risen to your standards. I think the standard attack of an opponent using tax loopholes is old and tattered and doesn’t hurt their base support (John Kerry is a great example of someone who did exactly this and pretty much skated past it). I also think the use of connecting the dots of Romney to abortion waste was weak at best and I tried (tongue in cheek) to explain this.
I will try to do a better job since that is what BMG does to people blogging here, on both sides.
I don’t even want to see all the conservatives leave.
We are talking about a presidential candidate hiding untold millions of dollars in secret offshore bank accounts. Scale sometimes counts.
From the Vanity Fair piece:
What say you, John? Is it ok with YOU that a presidential candidate be so deeply involved with these kinds of activities?
Again, 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Do us all a favor and work on showing Mitt Romney willfully violated a US law. Other than that, I don’t care. ANd when you get into the “Bain Capital was associated with person X who slept with woman Y who once flew on a plane with Osama Bin Laden…” you lose me and any other undecided person. You sound like FOX talking about William Ayers and Rev Wright. This type of story is just red meat for the Democratic base.
Hey, it wasn’t my guys who impeached a president for getting oral sex from a willing intern.
I think that if a candidate for mayor or selectman were parking funds in secret bank accounts, investing in money-laundering operations for the mob, and had a history of funding restaurants and waste disposal businesses that turned out to have mob connections, that candidate would have a hard time being elected in most Massachusetts towns.
I think Mitt Romney is sleazy, I think he’s a predator, and I think he’s dishonest. I grant you he didn’t do anything illegal — he spent enough money on lawyering to make sure of that.
I still think he’s a sleaze, and I think this behavior demonstrates it.
The former is just a number, which need not inform the latter. JohnD asks why a George Soros isn’t criticized as harshly. The answer is quite simply that he understands the needs of society and while may have 1% wealth does not demonstrate 1% attitude. I can understand philanthropy and social conscience, but you wrote this:
We know that is true, but its an example of 1% attitude WITHOUT 1% wealth, which honestly does baffle many of us because it means that you are acting politically against your own interests and appear to not understand just how badly you are being shafted.
We do not consider our politics as voting against our own benefits. Consider this analogy… we have all ran in races such as high school gym class. If the class had to run a 100 yard dash, the results would have people coming in first… to last. I was one of those people who finished middle to the end, depending on how hard other ran and I reached down inside of me. I NEVER finished first or even close to the top 25%. BUT… I think it’s a fair race and whoever is fastest should win. I don’t want the faster runners weighted down to help me, I don’t want to start the race on the 30 yard line to help me out. It is was it is, if I want to win I’ll have to run faster, train harder, eat less… even though changing all these rules would ultimately help me win and opposing them would be “against my best interests”. That’s life and that’s how the country should run. You can complain that some parents helped their kids train to run, others had better food to eat which helped build muscles but they are all “excuses”.
…is that those who ran faster also started at the same line as you did and did not start ahead in this race because they did better in previous races. Also, those who got ahead of you it was because they actually ran faster, and yes, maybe some had better opportunity like you mention in your last sentence. What they definitely did NOT do however was run into your lane on the track to block you, or bribe the referees (read lobby the government) to physically hold you back or force you to play by different rules. While we’re on sports analogies, don’t NFL and NBA teams who did poorly one season get better draft picks in the next season? I DO believe that certain basics, like education and health care, should more or less be handed to you because without those baselines any other “opportunity” you might have is essentially meaningless. I’m all for people who get rich on their own innovation, creativity, hard work, etc., but people like Mitt Romney who got ahead on the hardship of others, yes, I do in fact have a problem with that kind of “success”. BTW, I’ve noticed an inconsistency in your arguments. Some days you ask why we hate rich people as if that is a general premise, yet other days you ask why we give certain rich people whom we agree with a pass, clearly demonstrating that we don’t hate “rich people” per se after all!
The inconsistency is on you not me. I try to point out that you do hate rich people (KBusch, I am not repeating this for the 3 billionth and ONE th time, just answering the question from Christopher) but you give passes to rich people who are liberal Democrats (John Kerry). I’m not inconsistent, I have no problem with any of their wealth, whether they worked for it like Darrell Issa who started a company or married it like John Kerry.
The NFL and the NBA are closed system where the goal is making every game a close game. I don’t want to engineer society. I want equal opportunity, not equal results.
Do you? Do you really? If you’re serious about that, then you have to do a lot of leveling to create the conditions for equal opportunity, since we know that social and economic status play a major role in one’s children’s life chances.
What the private side of our society (families…) provide is plain and simply the luck of the individual (both good luck and bad luck). I don’t look like Tom Cruise or have a body like Matthew Mcconaughey, so is it up to Uncle Sam to level the playing field when I go out looking for love? The Gov should provide good education to all Americans but if my Father feels like skipping his vacation so he can put me in a Catholic High School for a “better” education, then I might do better in college and may get a better job. I benefit from his sacrifices… your Father feels YourTown HS is just fine and you get a “good” education and an “ok” job. That’s the way it should work.
However, I don’t take any responsibility for her being a Democrat. I had not heard of her before this story, and as far as I know she has never held or sought political office. She was married to someone who got a controversial pardon from a Democratic President, but I thought you were the one who didn’t like playing 6 degrees.
Honestly, it is the laws that need fixing. If I had my way it wouldn’t matter what your citizenship is, where your bank account is, or where your corporate address is. If you make your money in the United States, it should be taxable by the United States. We’re more upset about Romney because of a combination of the fact that he IS running for POTUS, and his actions are just so emblematic oof his elitist attitude.