• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bain Files: Inside Mitt Romney’s Tax-Dodging Cayman Schemes

Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Sounds to me like you have a very low threshold for what you consider bragging. I suppose you'd say he was bragging if he said he liked his dog.
Click to expand...

Its far more apparent that romney can do no wrong to you and your incapable of admitting it
 
Mycroft said:
Those are relative terms...I prefer to stay with something factual...like illegal. You know...in violation of a law.

Heck, he could go take a piss outside and you would paint him as unethical, deceitful and disgusting.
Click to expand...

What an irrelevent statement...its not about legal or illegal...its about VOTES and disgusting, decietful, Unethical loses you votes just as fast and in some cases faster than Illegal.
 
lpast said:
What an irrelevent statement...its not about legal or illegal...its about VOTES and disgusting, decietful, Unethical loses you votes just as fast and in some cases faster than Illegal.
Click to expand...

Of course it is about Legal vs. Illegal... As long as he has operated within the framework of the law, then it shouldnt be about him... now if you want to change the law... then you should work on that instead.
 
lpast said:
What an irrelevent statement...its not about legal or illegal...its about VOTES and disgusting, decietful, Unethical loses you votes just as fast and in some cases faster than Illegal.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand where you are coming from. Anything you can find and use to spin into an attitude that Romney is bad...well, it's fair game. Personally, I don't care about or put much credence into crazy taxer stuff.

Now...if you found a situation in which his campaign said some stuff and then Romney denied that his campaign said that stuff...you know, outright lying like Obama did...well, that would be interesting and should lose him some votes.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh, I understand where you are coming from. Anything you can find and use to spin into an attitude that Romney is bad...well, it's fair game. Personally, I don't care about or put much credence into crazy taxer stuff.

Now...if you found a situation in which his campaign said some stuff and then Romney denied that his campaign said that stuff...you know, outright lying like Obama did...well, that would be interesting and should lose him some votes.
Click to expand...


His actions make him bad...not my spin...just like YOUR SPIN doesnt make him look good....a bit more honesty from the right on their not so heroic hero would refreshing...instead of demanding that honesty just from the other side about their candidate ad nauseum.
 
Now...if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to my nap.

Please...don't wake me for stupid stuff again, eh?
 
obvious Child said:
You mean like his $10,000 bet with Perry?

Short memory you have.
Click to expand...

More stupid stuff, I see.

Do you even know what that bet was about?

And it somehow means Romney is bragging?

You liberals have nothing but stupid attempted spin like this. Do honestly think Obama could win by talking about this bet and Romney's "bragging"??
 
Mycroft said:
More stupid stuff, I see.

Do you even know what that bet was about?

And it somehow means Romney is bragging?

You liberals have nothing but stupid attempted spin like this. Do honestly think Obama could win by talking about this bet and Romney's "bragging"??
Click to expand...

Did you really just say that?

Romney's not bragging by tossing around an outrageous amount on a stupid bet?

By your measure, bragging doesn't exist.
 
Yeah its just terrible what Romney is doing. No one else would ever think about those sort of tax dodging schemes would they? Gawker does? Really?

Gawker Stalker: Nick Denton Spotted in Cayman Islands : The New Yorker

Taking a break from the thousands of pages of documents related to the 2008 bank bailout that the Fed released yesterday—more on them later—I indulge my reprehensible weakness for media gossip, perusing a six-thousand-word post by Felix Salmon, the financial blogger, about Gawker Media. In addition to being an excellent advertisement for restricted word counts—and Salmon’s Stakhanovite work ethic—the post contains quite a bit of stuff that was news to me. (And, no, I don’t mean all that guff about Gawker redesigning its home page to feature one lead story. Stop the presses: Nick Denton, a former newspaper man, discovers the front-page splash.)

Here’s the real skinny:

1) Gawker’s top advertising executive, Chris Batty, the person primarily responsible for bringing in the green that pays the rest of the staff’s wages, has quit or been pushed out, and he’s taking with him the firm’s top salesman. Actually, the media-savvy Denton put this bad news out himself, in a long e-mail to staff that was leaked earlier this week. But Salmon has lots of background to Batty’s departure, which he says is likely to hit Gawker’s revenues in the coming months. Seems Batty and Denton disagreed about the wisdom of junking the blog format that Gawker pioneered and trying to become an online cable network, which is what appears to be in Denton’s mind.

2) Gawker is organized like an international money-laundering operation. Much of its international revenues are directed through Hungary, where Denton’s mother hails from, and where some of the firm’s techies are located. But that is only part of it. Recently, Salmon reports, the various Gawker operations—Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, Gawker Sales LLC—have been restructured to bring them under control of a shell company based in the Cayman Islands, Gawker Media Group Inc.

Why would a relatively small media outfit based in Soho choose to incorporate itself in a Caribbean locale long favored by insider dealers, drug cartels, hedge funds, and other entities with lots of cash they don’t want to advertise? The question virtually answers itself, but for those unversed in the intricacies of international tax avoidance Salmon spells it out: “The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion’s share of the the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the I.R.S.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, really.

Fix the tax code and this wont be an issue for anyone. Its such a maze that its a miracle anyone can understand it if their taxes are complicated and diverse.
 
obvious Child said:
Did you really just say that?

Romney's not bragging by tossing around an outrageous amount on a stupid bet?

By your measure, bragging doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You really ought to find out what the whole bet was about.
 
Mycroft said:
You really ought to find out what the whole bet was about.
Click to expand...

You really outta to know how much $10,000 is. FYI: It's about a third of what the average American makes.

And Romney was willing to put it on a bet.

This election has pushed you so far from critical thinking it's not even funny.

It's like nothing the Republicans do can be wrong in your eyes. Romney could murder a boy on live tv and you'd excuse it.
 
obvious Child said:
You really outta to know how much $10,000 is. FYI: It's about a third of what the average American makes.

And Romney was willing to put it on a bet.

This election has pushed you so far from critical thinking it's not even funny.

It's like nothing the Republicans do can be wrong in your eyes. Romney could murder a boy on live tv and you'd excuse it.
Click to expand...

You ever been to Vegas?

Look, you are all bent out of shape about the amount of the bet...yet you have no idea what the bet was all about.

All style...no substance. The story of the liberal.
 
Mycroft said:
You ever been to Vegas?

Look, you are all bent out of shape about the amount of the bet...yet you have no idea what the bet was all about.

All style...no substance. The story of the liberal.
Click to expand...

How many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

And I'm not the one arguing it's normal for a campaign to help their opponents spread dirty rumors. You are.

And you saying I'm all style. Insane.
 
obvious Child said:
How many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

And I'm not the one arguing it's normal for a campaign to help their opponents spread dirty rumors. You are.

And you saying I'm all style. Insane.
Click to expand...

I AM saying you are all style and no substance and it doesn't make me insane. Your own words...your own lack of desire to speak to the substance of an event...proves my assessment.
 
Mycroft said:
I AM saying you are all style and no substance and it doesn't make me insane. Your own words...your own lack of desire to speak to the substance of an event...proves my assessment.
Click to expand...

I'm all style? I guess that's what you call people who use logic and critical thinking.

Again, how many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

Furthermore, why are you constantly avoiding answering that?

Romney could murder a child on live TV and you'd make excuses for him at this point.
 
obvious Child said:
I'm all style? I guess that's what you call people who use logic and critical thinking.

Again, how many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

Furthermore, why are you constantly avoiding answering that?

Romney could murder a child on live TV and you'd make excuses for him at this point.
Click to expand...

Now you are starting to repeat yourself.

Try addressing the actual facts of the bet instead of illuminating the amount of the bet and trying to make a big deal about it...or worse, trying to make some connection to your contention that he is bragging.

That's what I mean by "style over substance". You have no substance.
 
Mycroft said:
Now you are starting to repeat yourself.

Try addressing the actual facts of the bet instead of illuminating the amount of the bet and trying to make a big deal about it...or worse, trying to make some connection to your contention that he is bragging.

That's what I mean by "style over substance". You have no substance.
Click to expand...

Look. You claimed Romney doesn't brag.

Except that he did just that by betting Perry $10,000.

How the hell do you know has the means or the audacity to throw out a bet like that on live TV?

You simply ignore whatever you do not like because it challenges your framework. And you are unable to examine your own framework.

What the bet was about is irrelevant. The fact that he was willing to do so on live TV on a fricken' bet is bragging.


Again, how many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

Furthermore, why are you constantly avoiding answering that?


You claim I'm all style, but it is you who is always dancing around the hard points, being dishonest and accusing others of crap you know you can't prove.

You were the one arguing that it is NORMAL for a campaign to help its opponents spread dirty rumors. And you say I'm no substance? Insane.
 
obvious Child said:
Look. You claimed Romney doesn't brag.

Except that he did just that by betting Perry $10,000.

How the hell do you know has the means or the audacity to throw out a bet like that on live TV?

You simply ignore whatever you do not like because it challenges your framework. And you are unable to examine your own framework.

What the bet was about is irrelevant. The fact that he was willing to do so on live TV on a fricken' bet is bragging.


Again, how many people do you know that freely bet $10,000?

Furthermore, why are you constantly avoiding answering that?


You claim I'm all style, but it is you who is always dancing around the hard points, being dishonest and accusing others of crap you know you can't prove.

You were the one arguing that it is NORMAL for a campaign to help its opponents spread dirty rumors. And you say I'm no substance? Insane.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!

After all that, you still don't get it. And you still only repeat yourself.

Look. Why do people bet? Because they want to brag about how much money they have? LOL!! No. Because they believe they are right and they are willing to put money where their mouth is. But you don't care about what Romney believes...you don't care about the substance. You are..."ZOMG!! Did you see how much MONEY he bet??!! He must be bragging!!." You are all about style.

Style over substance. That's you and that is typical of liberals.

You are right. I ignore that which detracts from what's important. I ignore the style that liberals love to talk about. I prefer to stick to the substance. The substance...the meat of the matter..."the hard points".
 
Carleen said:
He could have put all of this to rest, but chose not to. Speculation can be a driving force when there is a lack of details.
Click to expand...

This has all been discussed ad naseum...but I would just point out that speculation is a minor issue compared to the field day the liberals would have if they had actual data they could spin.
 
Mycroft said:
This has all been discussed ad naseum...but I would just point out that speculation is a minor issue compared to the field day the liberals would have if they had actual data they could spin.
Click to expand...


When attempting a defence of one's preferred candidate, one should try to stay abreast of the news

Equity Swaps, AIVs, and Mitt Romney’s Other Tax-Dodging Tricks

A perhaps less well-known, and sketchier, method for avoiding taxes is something called an equity swap, and several of Romney's funds make use of the trick, according to the documents. Simply put, equity swaps are agreements to exchange the gain or loss on a particular set of assets without actually transferring ownership. ... The New York Times reported in 2010 that the IRS is scrutinizing equity swaps as a tax avoidance scheme, because the agency "suspects that the banks are disguising who owns stock in order to help their offshore hedge fund clients avoid the withholding tax — a tax the banks are supposed to collect."
(...)
The documents are also chock full of in AIVs, or alternative investment vehicles—holding corporations specifically established to help specific partners avoid taxes (or other legal issues) on specific investments.
Click to expand...


Then there's this article at Business Insider, Romney and Private Equity's Questionable Schemes for Paying Very Little Tax

Followed by this one, from the reliably 'librul' Forbes magazine. Bain Capital Under Investigation For Tax Avoidance-Romney Denies Any Benefit. That last bit - Romney Denies Any Benefit would appear to be contradicted by the rather extended 'retirement' plan under which Mitt has received income from various Bain entities as described in an article at the Fortune/CNN site. The article by Dan Primack is an attempted explanation of why Romney's signature is found on various SEC filings, years after his supposed 'retirement'. When Did Romney really leave Bain?

On first read, Corn's (Mother Jones) argument seems compelling. But, upon reflection, it's little more than conjecture that uses old regulatory filings as authoritative-sounding smokescreens. To be clear, I'm not questioning the documents' veracity. Or their existence (since I also looked them up on my own). Instead, I'm questioning Corn's conclusion.
Click to expand...

The key part, for those of us who dislike Mr Romney, is this
Not surprisingly, Bain Capital hadn't worked out all the details of Romney's departure. It eventually would discard the CEO position in favor of a horizontal management committee made of of numerous partners, and provide Romney with a golden parachute that included limited partnership interests in all Bain-related funds raised through 2009 (including the option for Romney to invest additional monies)
Click to expand...

So if it can be shown that said "Bain-related funds" did benefit from tax-avoidance schemes, as does seem to be the case, it can be concluded that Mitt also benefited from those same tax-avoidance schemes.
 
Somerville said:
When attempting a defence of one's preferred candidate, one should try to stay abreast of the news



Then there's this article at Business Insider, Romney and Private Equity's Questionable Schemes for Paying Very Little Tax

Followed by this one, from the reliably 'librul' Forbes magazine. Bain Capital Under Investigation For Tax Avoidance-Romney Denies Any Benefit. That last bit - Romney Denies Any Benefit would appear to be contradicted by the rather extended 'retirement' plan under which Mitt has received income from various Bain entities as described in an article at the Fortune/CNN site. The article by Dan Primack is an attempted explanation of why Romney's signature is found on various SEC filings, years after his supposed 'retirement'. When Did Romney really leave Bain?



The key part, for those of us who dislike Mr Romney, is this


So if it can be shown that said "Bain-related funds" did benefit from tax-avoidance schemes, as does seem to be the case, it can be concluded that Mitt also benefited from those same tax-avoidance schemes.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah...

Wake me when he's been found guilty of a crime, eh?
 
Mycroft said:
Blah, blah, blah...

Wake me when he's been found guilty of a crime, eh?
Click to expand...



OR, in other words


What you post may be true but I would rather not contemplate the possibility while I enjoy my Galtian dreams that the "Kenyan, Marxist" will be defeated by the anti-women duo of prevaricating, plastic male (white) robots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom