The difference here being that Romney has a history of lying on and about his taxes. A history that is documented, proven and part of a verified public record. Romney also has a history of calling for his opponents, and even his opponents’ spouses to release their tax returns to prove they had nothing to hide.
Where is Obama’s proven history of lying about his education or his transcripts?
And as noted, the tax returns are for the most recent 10 years - which would and should have greater relevance than something that happened 30 years ago, wouldn’t you think?
And further still, one would think, wouldn’t one, that Harvard would check and verify Obama’s Columbia records? Unless you are also alleging that Harvard is part of the socialist cabal?
So all in all - there is a lot of credible evidence that Romney has something to hide, and by hiding his releases he is going against accepted practice for presidential candidates. Obama, on the other hand, is in line with normal customs in this regard.
Is Obama running on, “the trouble with today’s economy is that people have been lying about their
college transcrips from 30 years ago”?
or
“Job creators are being hampered because of the foreign exchange students poising as american students”
or
“The deficit could be reduced by giving the wealthy tax cuts and making sure people show the grades on their college transcrips from 30 years ago”
If he was then boy would he need to produce his own college transcrips!
Apart from whatever Reid said or whatever someone may have said to Reid, the fact still remains that Romney not releasing his taxes smacks of AT BEST arrogance and at worst that he is trying to hide something illegal. The problem is we don’t know what it is and so we are free to speculate until he does release them. The idea that we cannot speculate because we “don’t know” absolutely is ludicrous. The cloud here is entirely of Romney’s making.
Sure, it isn’t up to either Obama or Romney to deny any allegation that’s made against them. But it behooves both of them to weigh the benefits of addressing an allegation versus ignoring it or otherwise denying it without evidence. Regarding Root and Reid, for their credibility they should definitely produce proof of what they claim. In the larger question of the OP, I acknowledge that Romney could merely be wary of the Democrats making hay out of benign details found in his tax returns. But since we already know he’s rich, I think the the chance of actual damning info being found is much higher, otherwise he would have released them already.
the coauthors both appear to be tax policy wonks, and neither has hugely partisan credentials as far as I can tell. I like the “What if Romney took advantage of the amnesty for Swiss bank account tax evaders program” idea the best:eek:
The question is what would be in the tax returns that would affect anyones vote?
Romney supporters are going to vote Romney and Obama supporters are going to vote Obama.
I refuse to believe that there are any undecided voters out there.
If there are truly no undecided voters, then how does one account for elections not all going the same way time and again? Is it all due to old voters dying off and young ones replacing them?
I’ll give it a shot. There’s nothing stopping him. Except maybe a desire to talk about things that actually matter. And the fact that he doesn’t think that filing taxes that align with the U.S. tax code is something anyone should have to apologize for.
If the U.S. tax code consistently lets him pay a lower tax rate than the poor and middle class people he’s asking to vote for him, then he’s got plenty of incentive not to release it. That’s what I expect is going on here-not that Romney is cheating or breaking the law, just that he’s been the beneficiary of a fucked-up tax code, and it’d be embarrassing for him to keep pushing for tax cuts for the rich with that held over him.
