Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

No, it's not obvious why Presidential candidates should release this information when we don't insist upon it for Congressional candidates. Please, explain it to me.

I already answered why I think 2009 is important.

Very few presidential candidates have restricted themselves to one tax return and one estimated return. This is very unusual.

Don't Congressional Representatives risk the same conflicts of interest? Are you insisting we should require they release 3 (or does the number change?) years of tax returns when they run for office?

If not, why not?

Anonymous wrote:I think Obama has set a precedent by refusing to release his college records. If he is allowed to hide information that is commonly released by candidates, then I think he will have a hard time not looking hypocritical in this case.

There should be a standard list of documents, which everyone has to release and if they don't, they get disqualified.

I realize that there are pepple who post on this board who think that Princeton, Harvard and Columbia are the be-all-and-end-all, but I couldn't give a fig what Barrack Obama's grades were (and especially what Michelle Obama, who is not a candidate, wrote or did not write in here Princeton thesis). I also don't care how Romney did in college, B-school or law school, and I don't even care about his immature hazing of a classmate at his Cranbrook prep school. If we were electing 24 year old candidates for president, then I suppose a college transcript and writings might matter more. George W. Bush essentially convinced much of the country not to hold him accountable for what he did before he was 40, simply saying that "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."

Tax returns do matter for candidates, so that compliance and conflicts can be analyzed. This is especially true in Romney's case, in which he has put forward his business record as the reason to elect him President. Oh, yeah, and the Salt Lake Olympics. (Romney doesn't talk about his tenure as Massachusetts governor and the health care law that became the template for the Affordable Care Act, but never mind...)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

The best answer comes from another Presidential candidate, a wealthy businessman who essentially set the modern standard for release of multiple tax years: “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show,” George Romney said in 1968, in releasing a dozen years of tax returns.

Four years ago, Barrack Obama made public seven years of returns and now has a dozen in the public domain as he seeks reelection.

In 2000, George W. Bush and Al Gore each released nine years; Bill Clinton released 11 in 1992, George H.W. Bush 14 in 1988, according to old media accounts.


More background:
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/07/18/republicans-pressuring-mitt-romney-weather-the-storm-and-release-tax-returns-but-romney-doubts-whether-tempest-would-subside/lMCdU3XqeKAigGKPwIPv2M/story.html

Anonymous wrote:POTUS is not any old job. There are thousands and thousands of people who undergo far more invasive probing of their lives in order to get government jobs.

I happen to think the extensive probing that people currently accept (credit report, drug testing, off the clock social media use, etc) is inappropriate. Apparently, you agree with it. And there lies our disagreement. That's unlikely to change.

Wasserman is not running for president

bhaahahahahah wasserman has a swiss account too

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-inve...d-state-bank-india_648350.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

No, it's not obvious why Presidential candidates should release this information when we don't insist upon it for Congressional candidates. Please, explain it to me.

The 2010 return shows evidence of a recently closed Swiss bank account. The earlier returns will shed more light on that. And, I do think that's germane.

Was it a UBS account?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised how many are defending his right to not disclose. To me this is not about whether he has to or not.
He has been asked and others have done so, many voters would like it for the peace of mnd it gives them.

His integrity cannot be what we would like. Just what is he afraid of?
We all know he is not poor.

I think we, as a culture, have decided we have a right to all manner of information we have no business asking anyone. Insisting

I insist on my right to insist
This is different in that it always has been a given, matter of fact, taken for granted. Romney does not want to, but wants my vote. You can call him a saint and build an altar in his name if you really think he is doing something noble by refusing. But it is up to me if I vote for him

Presidential tax returns: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

No, it's not obvious why Presidential candidates should release this information when we don't insist upon it for Congressional candidates. Please, explain it to me.

The 2010 return shows evidence of a recently closed Swiss bank account. The earlier returns will shed more light on that. And, I do think that's germane.

Anonymous wrote:

Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?


He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

Far enough back so that it was before he was running for president and would know they'd be subject to scrutiny, so 2009 and at least three more previos years since he ran last time. Romney's own father submitted 12 years of returns and he wasn't even the nominee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

No, it's not obvious why Presidential candidates should release this information when we don't insist upon it for Congressional candidates. Please, explain it to me.

I already answered why I think 2009 is important.

Very few presidential candidates have restricted themselves to one tax return and one estimated return. This is very unusual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised how many are defending his right to not disclose. To me this is not about whether he has to or not.
He has been asked and others have done so, many voters would like it for the peace of mnd it gives them.

His integrity cannot be what we would like. Just what is he afraid of?
We all know he is not poor.

I think we, as a culture, have decided we have a right to all manner of information we have no business asking anyone. Insisting our political candidates provide us their college transcripts and all their tax returns is ridiculous. Just because we want to be voyeurs and see into every aspect of their lives doesn't mean we have any business asking it, much less requiring it.

I also don't think my company has any business requesting my credit score, requiring a drug test, or dictating what I do on facebook when I'm off the clock.

I think the intrusiveness we show regarding others comes back to haunt us.

POTUS is not any old job. There are thousands and thousands of people who undergo far more invasive probing of their lives in order to get government jobs.

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised how many are defending his right to not disclose. To me this is not about whether he has to or not.
He has been asked and others have done so, many voters would like it for the peace of mnd it gives them.

His integrity cannot be what we would like. Just what is he afraid of?
We all know he is not poor.

I think we, as a culture, have decided we have a right to all manner of information we have no business asking anyone. Insisting our political candidates provide us their college transcripts and all their tax returns is ridiculous. Just because we want to be voyeurs and see into every aspect of their lives doesn't mean we have any business asking it, much less requiring it.

I also don't think my company has any business requesting my credit score, requiring a drug test, or dictating what I do on facebook when I'm off the clock.

I think the intrusiveness we show regarding others comes back to haunt us.

Anonymous wrote:
Cinflicts of interest and violations of the law. Is this not obvious?

He's released his 2010 and will be releasing his 2011 when it's complete. How far back must he go to appease your concerns about conflicts of interest?

No, it's not obvious why Presidential candidates should release this information when we don't insist upon it for Congressional candidates. Please, explain it to me.