[Andy117]

Cracks me up that birthers are still on that and don't see the parallel with the income tax issue. What does Romney have to hide?

[dice]

Cracks me up that birthers are still on that and don't see the parallel with the income tax issue. What does Romney have to hide?

If you run for President, it's not a legal requirement to show your tax returns from years ago. That's the difference. You either have to be born in the U.S. or have both parents be U.S. citizens to run for President.

[Shaudius]

If you run for President, it's not a legal requirement to show your tax returns from years ago. That's the difference. You either have to be born in the U.S. or have both parents be U.S. citizens to run for President.

The exact requirements are up to debate.

[PickWinnerAllDay]

The exact requirements are up to debate.

Tax return is definitely not required was his point. Birthing requirements are obviously there.

[Shaudius]

Tax return is definitely not required was his point. Birthing requirements are obviously there.

Fair enough.

[stevenash]

Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.


Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy.

So what's the problem?

Romney released 2010 and 2011, he didn't have to even do that.

Dems: "Mitt, show us ten years of tax returns."
Mitt: "Why?"
Dems: "Because we said so"

[DwightShrute]

Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.


Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy.

So what's the problem?

Romney released 2010 and 2011, he didn't have to even do that.

Dems: "Mitt, show us ten years of tax returns."
Mitt: "Why?"
Dems: "Because we said so"

anything to deflect from the economy.

[dice]

The exact requirements are up to debate.

I guess you don't have to pay your taxes either. This has to be the dumbest statement I've ever heard on this board! LOL!

[dice]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

[stevenash]

anything to deflect from the economy.

13.9 percent on 20 million = almost 3 million dollars Romney paid in taxes last year.

That's more money he paid in taxes than 10 good doctors earn in a year before taxes.

What's the problem?

[Shaudius]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

You do realize that that doesn't define the term "natural-born citizen" right? If it did it would completely contradict this statement of yours, "You either have to be born in the U.S. or have both parents be U.S. citizens to run for President."

So yes, I stand by the intent of my statement which was to say that the exact requirements of what being a natural-born citizen are and thus qualified to be President are up to debate.

[dice]

You do realize that that doesn't define the term "natural-born citizen" right? If it did it would completely contradict this statement of yours, "You either have to be born in the U.S. or have both parents be U.S. citizens to run for President."

So yes, I stand by the intent of my statement which was to say that the exact requirements of what being a natural-born citizen are and thus qualified to be President are up to debate.

I was trying to keep the definition simple, but apparently you are in the mood to argue about everything. The legal requirements and definition of "natural-born citizen" are not open to debate. They are quite clear and you have eight ways to qualify.

[Bluehorseshoe]

13.9 percent on 20 million = almost 3 million dollars Romney paid in taxes last year.

That's more money he paid in taxes than 10 good doctors earn in a year before taxes.

What's the problem?

"One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."

George Romney (Mitt's dad)

[stevenash]

LAS VEGAS — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid again deflected questions Monday about releasing his tax returns, even as he continued to pound the demand for Mitt Romney to make more of his own public.

Instead, Reid pointed to the financial disclosure forms he files as a member of Congress, which provide different information.

“I’m a member of Congress now, I don’t make too much money,” said Reid, whose net worth was estimated at $10 million in 2010. “But it’s all listed every year.”

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson told POLITICO last week that the majority leader will not release his tax returns, writing: “He’s not running for president. … He has of course released more than 30 years of detailed [personal finance disclosures]. There is exponentially more information available to the public about Sen. Reid’s financial life than there is about Mitt Romney’s.”

Conservatives have begun accusing Reid of hypocrisy for his attacks on Romney. And the Las Vegas Review-Journal — in a somewhat different context — on Monday resurrected a 1974 statement in which Reid said: “Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”

Asked about that statement at a news conference Monday in Nevada, Reid responded: “In 1974, I wasn’t in Congress.

“All you have to do is go look,” he added. “I file every year, every stock trade, every piece of land I buy, all the money I have, it has the value of my homes, it’s got it all there.”

[MatI]

That is interesting, I didn't realise Reid was a presidential candidate. First i've heard of that.

[Shaudius]

I was trying to keep the definition simple, but apparently you are in the mood to argue about everything. The legal requirements and definition of "natural-born citizen" are not open to debate. They are quite clear and you have eight ways to qualify.

No, that's not the definition of a natural-born citizen. You aren't keeping any definition simple because being a "citizen of the United States at birth" is not the same as being a "natural-born" citizen. At least not according to a lot of constitutional scholars, which was the whole point of my statement. If your definition was the definition of natural-born citizen there would not be nearly as much hoopla about the President being potentially born in Kenya and thus not qualified to be President, "Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)." should cover him(yes, I realize some birthers like to claim that Ann Durham didn't live in the US for five years before turning 19(I believe is the argument anyway) since the passage you quote didn't read like that when Obama was born).

But either way natural-born citizen != citizen of the US at birth, it doesn't cover any gap at all, because Congress cannot simply legislate defining terms in the Constitution, you need, you guessed it, a constitutional amendment to do that or action from the Courts because the courts are tasked with interpreting the Constitution.

This situation would be no different than Congress declaring that "arms" in the second amendment only means muskets, and therefore all gun control laws were valid under the constitution(pre-Heller) as long as they did not affect muskets. How do you think people would react to that?

[stevenash]

That is interesting, I didn't realise Reid was a presidential candidate. First i've heard of that.

Romney released his tax reports from 2010, and 2011, two years more than what he is required to.
What's the problem.
He's not breaking some type of campaign law.

Democrats wagging the dog again, they are good at it, diverting attention from greater issues like economy, unemployment, you know issues that matter, and focusing on less important matters.

Democrats figure if they keep wagging the dog, it'll take the focus off of Obama's failures, not working, nothing is sticking, race is still pretty much a dead heat, and Obama is pretty much out of ammo.

Corzine ran the same campaign against Christie, Corzine should have won that election in a landslide, Christie now is doing a remarkable turnaround job in NJ, Corzine is now getting wasted in the Hamptons wondering what happened.

Democrats should know better that smear, attack campaigns don't work.
I guess I gave them too much credit.

[Shaudius]

Romney released his tax reports from 2010, and 2011, two years more than what he is required to.
What's the problem.
He's not breaking some type of campaign law.

Democrats wagging the dog again, they are good at it, diverting attention from greater issues like economy, unemployment, you know issues that matter, and focusing on less important matters.

Democrats figure if they keep wagging the dog, it'll take the focus off of Obama's failures, not working, nothing is sticking, race is still pretty much a dead heat, and Obama is pretty much out of ammo.

Corzine ran the same campaign against Christie, Corzine should have won that election in a landslide, Christie now is doing a remarkable turnaround job in NJ, Corzine is now getting wasted in the Hamptons wondering what happened.

Democrats should know better that smear, attack campaigns don't work.
I guess I gave them too much credit.

Yes, smear attacks are clearly an exclusively Democratic method of campaigning , smear attacks certainly didn't work for George W. Bush backers in 2004. Its not like there's a whole commonly used political term named after it now. Oh wait, there is.

[stevenash]

Smear attacks certainly didn't work for George W. Bush backers in 2004, oh wait.

So you are saying Obama is running a smear campaign on Romney?

You talking about Kerry and Swift Boat.
Sorry, try better, Kerry hung himself on that one, that was a slam dunk.

[andywend]

What i wanna see are those piss poor grades hes paying 1 million to hide, you know they gotta be bad if he pays that kind of coin.

He's not hiding his college records to shield his grades from public view.

He's hiding his college records to shield his college application(s) from public view as they will show that Barack Obama indicated his place of birth as Kenya on his college applications.

Now that the Obama team has brought forth a forged birth certificate (which was NOT available [because it didn't exist] when Hillary Clinton asked to see it during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election which almost sunk Obama's chances), they would pay a whole lot more than 1 million to continue to hide his college records as it would prove what FRAUDS Barack Obama, his team and the entire democratic party truly are.

Cracks me up that birthers are still on that and don't see the parallel with the income tax issue. What does Romney have to hide?

Liberal scum like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to call on Romney to provide 10 years worth of tax returns and Romney should counter that he will gladly provide them if President Obama agrees to UNSEAL and provide ALL of his FULL college records.

It puts Romney on the offensive while at the same time turn the heat away from him and onto President Obama.

[Shaudius]

So you are saying Obama is running a smear campaign on Romney?

You talking about Kerry and Swift Boat.
Sorry, try better, Kerry hung himself on that one, that was a slam dunk.

I started with the premise that your idea was true. Namely that YOU think Obama is running a smear campaign on Romney. From that premise I showed you that this is not an exclusively Democratic thing to do. It has nothing to do with whether I personally believe Obama is running a smear campaign against Romney.

Personally from where I am in a battleground state market, simply by watching the Olympics I see at least 2:1 to 3:1 negative ads against Obama. Mostly that same stupid ad about Obama, "you didn't build that" comment.

As an aside I also see a lot of ads by Crossroads GPS about balancing the budget somehow leading to growth, an ad which simply confuses me, as I don't really know how or why they think that a balanced budget would inherently cause growth and the ad certainly doesn't make any logical leaps about cutting taxes to spur growth or anything like that.

[Tully Mars 63]

I started with the premise that your idea was true. Namely that YOU think Obama is running a smear campaign on Romney. From that premise I showed you that this is not an exclusively Democratic thing to do. It has nothing to do with whether I personally believe Obama is running a smear campaign against Romney.

Personally from where I am in a battleground state market, simply by watching the Olympics I see at least 2:1 to 3:1 negative ads against Obama. Mostly that same stupid ad about Obama, "you didn't build that" comment.

As an aside I also see a lot of ads by Crossroads GPS about balancing the budget somehow leading to growth, an ad which simply confuses me, as I don't really know how or why they think that a balanced budget would inherently cause growth and the ad certainly doesn't make any logical leaps about cutting taxes to spur growth or anything like that.

I didn't know you were in a BG state. Let me ask you if you think at some point both sides will reach "market saturation" and people will just tune out the ads?

[MatI]

Romney released his tax reports from 2010, and 2011, two years more than what he is required to.
What's the problem.
He's not breaking some type of campaign law.

Democrats wagging the dog again, they are good at it, diverting attention from greater issues like economy, unemployment, you know issues that matter, and focusing on less important matters.

Democrats figure if they keep wagging the dog, it'll take the focus off of Obama's failures, not working, nothing is sticking, race is still pretty much a dead heat, and Obama is pretty much out of ammo.

I don't have a problem with it. I couldn't give a shit what the Democratic party ask of Romney, I expect Mitt to do what is best for his own campaign, just as every other candidate has done for the last 100 or so years.

It just seems a little ironic that all of a sudden you want to see Harry Reid's returns. As if anyone will give a shit.

And Democrats do not hold a monopoly on wagging the dog and distracting from the real issues. Both parties are equally responsible for that. You seem quite forgiving of the games the R party are willing to play. I wonder why...

[stevenash]

He's not hiding his college records to shield his grades from public view.

He's hiding his college records to shield his college applications from public view as they will show that Barack Obama indicated his place of birth as Kenya on his college applications.

Now that the Obama team has brought forth a forged birth certificate (which was NOT available [because it didn't exist] when Hillary Clinton asked to see it during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election which almost sunk Obama's chances), they would pay a whole lot more than 1 million to continue to hide his college records as it would prove what FRAUDS Barack Obama, his team and the entire democratic party truly are.Liberal scum like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to call on Romney to provide 10 years worth of tax returns and Romney should counter that he will gladly provide them if President Obama agrees to UNSEAL and provide ALL of his FULL college records.

It puts Romney on the offensive while at the same time turn the heat away from him and onto President Obama.

Obama and his infamous strategist David Axelrod understand how to play political hardball, the best it’s ever been played. Team Obama has decided to distract America’s voters by condemning Mitt Romney for not releasing enough years of his tax returns.

It’s the perfect cover. Obama knows the best defense is a bold offense. Just keep attacking Mitt and blaming him for secrecy and evasion, while accusing him of having a scandal that doesn’t exist. Then ask followers like Senator Harry Reid to chase the lead. The U.S. Senate Majority Leader appears to now be making up stories out of thin air, about tax returns he knows nothing about. It’s a cynical, brilliant, and vicious strategy. Make Romney defend, so he can’t attack the real Obama scandal.

This is classic Axelrod. Obama has won several elections in his career by slandering his opponents and leaking sealed documents. Not only do these insinuations and leaks ruin the credibility and reputation of Obama’s opponents, they keep them on the defensive and off Obama’s trail of sealed documents.