Shared publicly  - 
There's no lie too brazen for Romney and his team/supporters. Now they're saying Obama is trying to block soldiers from voting in Ohio. Absolutely false, and shameful (of course, this assumes a capacity for shame, which is obviously lacking). 
JUAN PEREZ III's profile photoJeremiah Dehner's profile photoErick Lampro's profile photoDan Gillmor's profile photo
I hadn't realised that Romney thought he was so far behind that he and his teem have to pull a stunt like this.
It's like Romney is trying to just give the election to Obama... is he even really trying? Why point out voter ID laws that are going into place over the whole country that Republicans are enacting? I can not wait for the debates this is going to end with Romney crying in a fetal position on the stage. 
And yet I've spoken to many who have bought the Romney line. Ohio is likely to go Obama and the GOP is getting desperate there. 
As always the conversation has returned to "let me tell you about the bad about...." and very little on "here is what we (currently in power) have done".. One needs to look at each party (the man is just a figurehead) is saying they will offer.  The problem, as I see it, is that there is way too much "us and them" and nearly not enough "we". I'm not to impressed with the President, Romney or any of the Representative we have elected into office. None of them, as I can see, are interested in anything but their own positions of power.  We need to look at all the votes we make and make sure they count.  Do your research and don't rely on the waving flags of the right or left.  
Obama lies to the American people all the time, but mitt is the devil.

Typical American blindness to reality
Lobbyists and bank interests won't be part of my cabinet he said.

Health care law negotiated on cspan he said.

No individual mandate he said.

Bring back habius corpus he said.

They all lie. Washington is a evil pool of soulless people who have been bought and paid for. Us dividing ourselves plays right into their had. War on women, class warfare, right v left....
Why vote for you because you are just asdishonest as any in goverment because you are all talk no action for thr poor.
Don't forget The Obama administration and their lies and Harry Reid lying about Romney not paying taxes for 10 years. But when the US Treasure Secretary did not pay his taxes and. He was fine with that. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.
+JUAN PEREZ III That has yet to be shown. While I'll be genuinely surprised if Reid's accusation is true, until Romney provides any evidence to the contrary, it's every bit as valid as Romney's equally-unsubstantiated claims. Especially given Romney's track record of lying frequently and brazenly about his taxes, I see no reason to believe Romney any more than I do Reid. (And given his reluctance to share them, I'm assuming there is something in them Romney doesn't want us to see.)
Yes because in America i forgot it is guilty until proven innocent, and like 17th century Britain, the accused has to prove innocence rather than the accuser prove guilt.

This country is doomed...
+Jeremiah Dehner I think Reid is a slimeball for his innuendo based on unnamed sources. And the fact that Democrats haven't called him on this is disgraceful. 

Having said that, Romney is clearly hiding something. We already knew that, however. 
Stupid question but for all of the people who think that Romney is hiding something in his taxes becasue he said he isn't going to release them.  Did you feel the same way when the President said he wasn't going to release his birth certificate or did you just make fun the Republicans (rightfully so) who said he must be hiding something becasue he wouldn't release it?
Obama hides his lies and continuance of things he said over and over he would change out in the open, and people won't vote for romney because of what he did with his personal money?

some of you need to read up on our current secretary of treasury. Because that is our money.

But all aboard the distraction train. Lets worry about one man's money, not what the current administration is doing with ours?
People in the usa think they can put there ways on canada i do not trust groverment any more because they get in and all they do is see how fast they can take tax payers money and pentioners money this people are for themselfs not the small guy so wake up and see what your groverment is doing.
+nat barmore Romney has provided his tax returns as a courtesy. No where is it required by law to provide tax returns to run for President. As for Harry Reid to insinuate a Presidential Candidate is a felon by not paying taxes for 10 years. Trust me, the IRS would love to make an example of a public figure for not paying their taxes, can you say Wesley Snipes for example. Open your eyes, how does a tax return improve the economy. Watch out for the red herrings.
+Hames Jodgson the current president only released like 5 years. McCain released less then that. Romney submitted taxes to McCain during the vetting process. He was governor of a state aren't his taxes public record? There have been candidates who have not released 12 years of taxes. 
+Hames Jodgson when he was a candidate he didn't release 11 years of returns.  I read the rest of your post.  Just because he doesn't want people to see his stuff doesn't mean he is hiding something.  If you believe that then what is the Presidnet hiding in his academic record?  How come he hasn't released those?  See what a silly arguement this is?  Romeny has paid his taxes or the Federal Government would have him in jail.  I did think that we were innocent until proven guilty in this county but I could be wrong.
On December 31 2011 Obama signed ndaa which allows for the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens after promises to bring back habeas corpus and you are focusing on tax returns and birth certificates?

our founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
+Erick Lampro And I've talked about NDAA and Obama's war on civil liberties lots of times. It is possible, you know, to think about more than one thing at a time.
Wasn't addressing you as much as making a general statement.

Romney said he would sign it too.

But we'll never get better candidates as long as they can distract us with tax returns and birth certificates.

This is the first of your posts i've ever seen in my hot feed i believe, if what you're saying is true, my apologies for implying otherwise. But the tax return issue is moot.
Pretty much agree with everything you just said.

I am not saying we should look past as much as demand actual journalism, the end of "attack" ads, actual independent verification and vetting of elects by private citizens.

If we can put aside blind loyalty to a party, party fueled classwarfare, manipulations that cause terms like war on women to divide us, then and only then can we the people effect change.

We can disagree about the issues as long as we stop fooling ourselves that the government is our friend.

You're 100% right. Washington is bought and paid for. And only we can change that. Dividing ourselves, which plays into their hand, prevents change.
This may be crazy but i feel like the electoral college coupled with the second amendment was the founders way of saying, "many citizens cannot handle the individual responsibilities this form of government gives the people. The college is to prevent purely popular and foolish men from power and the guns are to prevent the evil men from power."
Not calling for violent revolution here, that is idiocy.

just saying they gave us the tools to take back our country because they knew someone would take it from us.
I just don't get it.

I guess it is easier to point a finger and blame so-and-so, or ignore it than it is to care...
+Hames Jodgson Rommey released more then that when he was a potential VP candidate.  The last four years of Obama tax returns have been because he is President.  If Romney is elected he will release at least 4 years of his tax returns.   I also love the sheep comment, people who are liberal leaning tend to use this to describe right leaning people.  All the while, amazingly people on the left come up with the same idea at the same time.  This tax return debate being a great example.  You just don't see it becasue it's your point of view.  You too are a good little sheep. 
+Hames Jodgson So then what you are saying also is that 7 years of tax returns would be okay for Romney to release since that is what the President did?
+Jeremiah Dehner What you just said is so slippery that I have to believe you know it's false in the context of this conversation.

Fact: Romney has released hardly anything when it comes to his taxes, unless "release" means to his accountant and an extremely small group of political insiders. As a VP candidate, he allegedly shared some returns with McCain's staff, but definitely did not share them with the public. 

It's part of a pattern, as well. Romney has a long history of covering his tracks to avoid public scrutiny, including the Olympics finances and his time as governor of Massachusetts. 

Which all makes me wonder: Do you think people are so stupid that they'll buy what you're saying? They really aren't.

So I'll keep asking: What's he hiding? 
+Dan Gillmor let me ask you how many years of tax returns do you want Romney to release to the public?  Would this only count for time in public office or would life as a private citizen be included?  Should those years be applied to anyone running for public office?  I don't think that he is hiding anything but I could be wrong.  I do agree with his statement that no matter what he releases it won't be enough.  Elizabeth Warren just called for Scott Brown to release 20 years of tax returns in their Senate Race.  This tax return issue is great for the administration, as they just can't seem to seperate from Romney.  This way the President has other people doing the dirty work and he can save his money and still appear above the fray. 
+Jeremiah Dehner I'm glad that you acknowledge (if only indirectly) that your earlier comment was BS. To answer your question, Romney should release the same years that Obama has released, going back to 2000. 
Just curious, what are you referring to when you say: covering his governor of Massachusetts?
+Dan Gillmor but if this is a big deal shouldn't we have a longer standard? Didn't McCain only release 2 years? 
+Dan Gillmor don't get me wrong. I still think that it's garbage that we are even acknowledging this based off a claim from an anonymous source. I would like to see the process be a little more defined though. If Romney is a tax cheat then the public needs to know but someone calling him one and then saying you need to prove me wrong is not right. 
The public isn't going to be able to tell if he is a tax cheat. 99% of people don't understand the 1040 beyond box 3.

as to the article, sounds like a bit of revisionist history and a bit like fast and furious... Without the dead people.
Shoot a vast majority don't even understand how our tax code works.

Google "tax code explained in beer"

simple explanation.
+Jeremiah Dehner This has zero to do with Reid's sleazy allegations. It has everything to do with Romney's stonewalling, which he was doing long before Reid opened his mouth on this subject. 

+Erick Lampro Right, "the public" is just too stupid to understand if, say, he's paid a tiny percentage of income in taxes compared with the middle class.
Focus on bringing the economy back. Romney's tiny percentage is large in dollar amounts. Focus on the amount not percentages. This topic is a deflection of Obamas failed policy. Why aren't you debating why Harry Reid and the Senate have not passed a budget since Obama has been president. The spending is out of control because of exuberant stop gap measures that you can just come up with any amount you want. It's required by law to have a budget.
Tiny percentage? he will have paid between 15-22% effective rate depending on how far you go back and the year i would imagine.

The percentage argument always cracks me up. He gives more to charity than anyone here, pays more in tax every year than everyone in this thread will, combined will for like most likely but the complaint is "his percentage is too low."
Like i said, the vast majority do not understand the IRC.

Including yourself even though your condescending defense of a general public that cannot spend less than they earn, but yeah they will understand complex tax returns and the foreign tax credit.
Also lol @ your claim that you discussion includes a hard look at the left. I just went through you post history and see a lot of republican bashing, romney bashing and computer talk.

Please. You cannot take an honest look at the fact they are all crooks and talk about the truth, you are just part of the spin machine that ruined my nation.

Your g+ page is far from independent just in case you actually thought otherwise.
+Erick Lampro In your alleged search my G+ postings, looking for critiques of the Democrats, you've obviously not used the word "Obama" as part of your search. I've said repeatedly here that his record in several areas, notably civil liberties and cushy treatment of the banksters, is abysmal. 

I do think the Democrats have few principles, and are part of a thoroughly corrupt system. But I also believe the Republicans have gone pretty much insane with their policies, which IMO would destroy the nation if, god forbid, they were enacted in full.

I have no idea what that link to my old blog post is supposed to mean.
The fact you cannot tie your okay with "innocence until proven guilty" in the link to your "romney is guilty of something i just know it" posting here is confirmation of your biases.
+Erick Lampro Quite the stretch. By definition, Romney is hiding something.

As for his being a frequent and brazen liar, that is also literally beyond dispute at this point.
+Dan Gillmor I know that this debate has been going on but I was wondering, should the release of all tax returns be requirement to hold public office? 
+Jeremiah Dehner Not every office, no. I would say that president, governors and members of Congress should do that. YMMV.
+Dan Gillmor I agree with that but I think that I would also put the Presidential appointees there as well. 
Do you think Romney might have a warren buffet situation where is income is mostly from investments and is taxed at a lower rate? We saw the uproar over how buffet pays less percentage then his secretary. Could that be what is holding Romney back from releasing his returns?
+Dan Gillmor I don't know, we saw the reaction from the public when Buffet made his statement.  That was a perfect sound bite for the cabenews cycle.  They even passed the Buffet rule.  I think that Romney would be doing a lot of explaining, which most Americans would tune out anyway because it's boring.  That being said you people have made a point that it might be better to just get the stuff out there, instead of letting other peoole shape what might be in there or not in there.
Having innocence until proven guilty apply to everyone is a stretch?

thank god i'm not a journalist then. Because i can tell the difference between the following and god forbid the public be given fact based information:

"he won't release his returns beyond the 2010 that is public record. Reid has made bold accusations. Controversies surround the situation."


"mitt must be hiding something from the American public because he won't release his tax returns. Even if what Reid said was false, romney continues to hide the truth from the American people."
*fact based information without conclusions drawn for them.
+Erick Lampro I don't know what Romney is hidiing, and it may be entirely benign (presumption of innocence). That he is hiding something, however, is simply true. You genuinely don't see the difference? Then you're either a fool, which I doubt, or deliberately blind.
I have no idea why he isn't releasing his returns, i haven't asked him. No i don't just assume he is hiding anything. Maybe that is because i work with returns like his everyday and know what they will tell someone that understands tax and what they will become to the vast vast majority that don't understand and are just going to make up a bunch of false conclusions on internet memes.

But my larger point is: journalists drawing conclusions for the reader isn't journalism. How you phrase the reporting is important. Your responses here really just confirm you are batting for a team, and that team isn't your readers, and their right to true unbiased news.
+Erick Lampro Yes, we're all too stupid to understand how our financial system is rigged to the advantage of the people at the top. Thanks for setting us straight on that. 

You fool no one with your defense of the indefensible. Romney is running for the most powerful office on the planet.  His calculated secrecy (going well beyond taxes), about matters that are of obvious interest to the electorate, speaks volumes.
It isn't stupidity it is a lack of understanding. there is a difference.

The system is actually supported by those at the top. The top 10% of wage earners bare 70% of the tax burden collected by the treasury. The top 1% have 20% of the income and bare 30% of the tax burden. How is that "rigged for the 1%"?

Of course when top earners bare the vast majority of the burden they benefit most when the burden is lowered.

And yes, quite a few people miss understand that.
Not to mention the 50% that only bare 3% of the burden collected. And no low wage earners shouldn't pay more.

The government has proven time and time again they cannot handle the fiscal responsibilities they have. Asking the rich to pay more is like buying you uncle the recovering alcoholic a 12 pack and asking someone else to pay for it.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't call anyone stupid. Typical journalist spin on my statement.
+Erick Lampro Oh, I see. We're not stupid. We just don't understand.  So let's see those tax returns, with an explanation that will help us understand.

And you can do better than toss out that chestnut about federal income taxes, which ignores a) all of the other taxes people at the middle and lower ends of the spectrum pay; and b) the fact that wealth is increasingly concentrated at the very top, more so now than at any time since the 1920s. Those poor widdle babies in the top 10 percent may pay 70 percent of the income taxes, but they also have >80 percent of the wealth in America. They don't pay enough to support the system that supports and perpetuates their wealth.

I think we've gone far enough with this thread.
The top 10% starts a little over 110k a year. Hardly rich.

Go ahead and shut down your thread. Cannot argue my points, mise well silence the conversation. How very republican of you.
What other taxes do the poor pay, that the rich don't?

Outside of social security which if they raised the cap people would complain because rich people that didn't need social security were getting more than lower class people that do need it.
Also, so the government now supports and perpetuates business in America?

laughable. The government hinders economic growth and gives our money to their rich friends without consequence.

Yeah we should give the government more money so they can do more awful things like TARP with it. Great plan.
The funniest part about all this, we want the same things in the macro sense.

You refuse to see that for whatever reason. I imagine it is because i don't pander to a political party's lies.

But i am not surprised the conversation breaks down when numbers and data get involved, it is typical really.

Like i said, the vast majority don't understand how taxes work. And would rather rally behind talking points the media creates that get page hits and sell papers...
I see reality quite well, but thanks for the conversation.
Haha. Okay.

We'll have to agree to disagree then seeing as you won't bother to point out what i am missing.

Only difference is your biases shape public opinion. I am just a cpa who does this stuff for a living.
I've responded to every point you've tried to make. You haven't done likewise, which is one reason this thread is worn out.
Okay, fine. I disagree, but what point would you like me to address?

And no you haven't BTW, but whatever
Childish "widdle" language dismissing hard facts based on income tax collection is not addressing a point.
Okay, let me try and guess what I didn't address...

Mitt hiding something: Fine. Fact is, if you are going to judge whether or not you are going to vote for someone based on his tax payments, you'll be lost looking for people to vote for. Congressman Reid got mega rich while on a congressional salary. Couldn't have anything to do with inside deals with land he owned? I know you **didn't** bring him up, I'm making a point, that this government is not your friend and not operating in your best interest, red or blue. Croney Capitlism has failed. Is he hiding anything? No. He is simpliy withholding something he has every right to withhold. Obama withholds a bunch of information and this wouldn't be a problem if he didn't create this "classware" meme.

b) "all of the other taxes people at the middle and lower ends of the spectrum pay" - again, outside of social security, what tax do middle and lower ends pay that the upper ends don't? Look, if you want to move back to Clinton era rates, fine. You'll see that it doesn't solve the problem or come close to solving the problem. Not to mention our government has a horrid track record with what they spend our money on. Why on Earth would you want to give them more? How about they actually show some curb to spending and then I'll conceed them stealing more of my money.

c) "the fact that wealth is increasingly concentrated at the very top, more so now than at any time since the 1920s" please point out a time in the history of man kind where there wasn't have's and have nots. Please show me where the poor in this country are worse off than the poor in India, China and Africa. Now, I'll give you that the wealth is concentrated at the top. Your plan is to get the wealthly to give their money to their friends (government) who has proven (with TARP) that they are just going to giveit back to them rather than let the free market work and punish them for bad choices? If I'm missunderstanding your plan, please explain.

d)"Those poor widdle babies in the top 10 percent may pay 70 percent of the income taxes, but they also have >80 percent of the wealth in America" Very adult rebuttal. But besides the childish fallacy, as of 2009, the top 10% actually have 43% of the taxable revenue (AGI), so about half your 80% figure. And they cover 70% of the tax burden. That is people making over 112k a year. Now, on the right we see the average % of AGI paid... Lets look at that shall we: Bottom 50% of people that file pay an average 1.85% tax rate, Top 1% pay 24% of AGI on average. the 5-10% (middle class) pay 11.4% of AGI in tax... The 10-25% of earners only pay an average 8% on their AGI. So I ask, what is their fair share, if this isn't fair? Unless these numbers changed under Obama, which I doubt because he extended Bush's rates, I don't see how this is unfair. The rich are the system.

e)"They don't pay enough to support the system that supports and perpetuates their wealth" I'm not sure if you are getting into a 'you didn't build' that argument, but based on above you are wrong. They are the vast majority of the system. Everyone making more than 110k a year is the system. People making more than 250k (somewhere between the 5-1%) cover at least 20% of our tax burden, while having a similar amount of the AGI.  They are the system, they do support it.

Here is the thing, we have very very rich people and companies (apple) with massive profits overseas right? Do you really think those profits and jobs will come back if we raise taxes?

How about we take government out of business, and get them back to paving roads, making GOOD schools, helping people get back on their feet and protecting our nation, and stop giving them the power that big business and Wall St covets, so they buy policy?

EDIT: added a didn't
EDIT2: I basically call AGI taxable revenue, and that isn't accurate. There are deductions standard/itemized between AGI and Taxable income. This will effect the % of income paid. But seeing as AGI is higher than taxable income, those % should go up accross the board, but may go up less for the more wealthy.
+Erick Lampro I stopped trying to engage when you didn't address my points.

Last time: I'm not judging Romney based on his tax avoidance (or not; we'll find out eventually). I'm judging him on his incessant lying about almost everything and his penchant for secrecy about matters that are of clear public interest, among other things.

As I've also said any number of times, Obama is no prize. He's also lied through his teeth and had a terrible record on things that matter to me. In the latter case, Romney would likely be worse, which is no surprise.

As for your statistics, what you're doing is right out of the protect-the-rich playbook, and I'm not buying it. The growing gap between the people at the very top and everyone else is taking us in precisely the wrong direction as a society. (The new Stiglitz book, for example, provides ample evidence.) The U.S. became the world's leading economic power in part because  we reduced income/wealth inequality for several generations. We need to do that again.

You think I'm a fan of TARP and the gifts to the banksters? Again, I'd urge you to actually read what I've said before. Our "too big to fail" system is a catastrophe, and we're inviting the crooks on Wall Street to do it again for even more rewards. 

We're done now. If you want to start a new thread, do it on your own page, and if it's interesting I'll point to it.