Mitts Pick

[AquaMan]

I don't have proof of lies or not.

I can accept a difference between public disclosure and private disclosure

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/08/08/romney-hid-his-returns-in-2002-mass-governors-race-too/

As George Will said about Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns, "The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them." Last week we learned that whatever it is he is hiding may not be new.

Rachel Maddow and her producers did a little digging and found that, in 2002, when he was running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney was equally adamant that he would not release his tax returns. A key issue then was Romney's eligibility to serve as governor. Massachusetts law requires that in order to serve as governor, candidates must have resided in the state for the previous seven consecutive years. Because Romney had lived in Utah full time while he ran the 2002 winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, it seemed obvious he did not meet that requirement.


One way to tell for sure would be to see which state, Massachusetts or Utah, Romney listed as his primary residence on his IRS forms. Romney and his adviser, Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fernhstrom vehemently denied that Romney had filed as a full-time resident of Utah. It was later revealed they were lying — Romney had amended his returns to change his claim of full-time residency in Utah to full-time residency in Massachusetts — retroactively.

Link to the Rachel Maddow show if you want more details (oh go ahead, I link to Fox commentators sometimes!). It seems that Romney was also offered just what you think is acceptable, a private disclosure of the address portion only, and still refused it because it didn't match his public statements.

[AquaMan]

And this...http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/48497159#48497159

At 8 minutes into the report, Mitt, on video, accuses his Democratic opponent in the Mass. governor race of not releasing her husband's tax returns, even though he had refused to release his, and asking her "What do you have to hide?"

This is familiar territory for Mitt.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I said about a month or so ago you had no humor.  

If you like cheezburger, you might like this, too.  Found it right after he started it a few years ago.  Clever.

http://www.xkcd.com/

I like # 1093.

[AquaMan]

If you like cheezburger, you might like this, too.  Found it right after he started it a few years ago.  Clever.

http://www.xkcd.com/

I like # 1093.

#670 (for engineers)

[nathanm]

Oh, little johnny tables. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

#670 (for engineers)

He's got a lot for engineers.  ( 730).

Really have to start at 1 to get the full experience.  When you have a quiet day with nothing else to do.


I've always wondered if #26 was doable....just seems like a practical thing to do with (for?) a cat.

[nathanm]

Lyin' Ryan strikes again. This time he's blaming Obama for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville even though the closure was announced before Obama had even been elected and effected before he took office. Oops. Try again?

[Conan71]

Lyin' Ryan strikes again. This time he's blaming Obama for the closing of the GM plant in Janesville even though the closure was announced before Obama had even been elected and effected before he took office. Oops. Try again?

So both campaigns suffer from lapses in timelines when it comes to peddling their bullshit.

[RecycleMichael]

Really conan?

Ryan is got clearly lying and and you say that? No examples. Just partisan "Your side has can't read a calendar, either."

[Conan71]

Really conan?

Ryan is got clearly lying and and you say that? No examples. Just partisan "Your side has can't read a calendar, either."

I thought it was cute.

You didn't give a free pass to the Obama campaign for lying with the GST steel ads?

[nathanm]

I believe that was a SuperPAC ad, not the candidate's own words. Ryan still hasn't apologized for lying about his asking for stimulus money. The best he could do is say his office shouldn't have done that. Of course, it turns out that back in 2002 he was on the House floor asking for stimulus money. I guess he forgot that, too. (I don't blame him, that was a decade ago!) Not to mention that he was for Ayn Rand before he was against her. I thought he was supposed to be less of a flip-flopper than Mitt.

Sadly, his numbers don't add up any more than Mitt's do and he can't seem to make up his mind any better than Mitt does, so what was the point of bringing him in?

[erfalf]

Deferring taxes is avoiding tax, that's why you do it. Rather than the government getting the benefit of the present value of the income tax that would otherwise be due, they only get the discounted future value. It's a trade that can be worth a lot depending on your time horizon.

That would only be true if the value of the assets never increased. As reality generally goes though, the value of the assets skyrocket and the government more than makes up for the deferred collection. It is not avoidance. You cannot avoid the tax code, you can just follow it. And as it sits, you can decide when you want to pay some forms of taxes.

And yes, the IRS does allow abusively low valuations of certain types of assets when they're put into an IRA or trust. It should have been valued at the NPV of the future income the investment represents since there is no defined market value. Instead, the lack of a defined market value (arguably, the IRS lets people get away with this) means it can be valued at zero or close to zero, even though there's no way in hell Romney would sell his carried interest for that price.

Ever worked in PE. No? Evaluating the future cash flows of some businesses is in line with betting at the craps table. Why else do PE firms buy companies? They need cash. If the companies knew their own cash flows and it was sustainable, they wouldn't be bought by PE firms. There are several instances of hostile takeovers, but they are far and few between because they are so incredibly costly.

Valuing private companies is incredibly difficult. Generally they are valued at cost or the most recent round of financing, which happen pretty far apart. And many times the cost has little relationship with the actual value of the enterprise. It's tough, that is why they are lenient. They are lenient, because either way they are going to get their money. If the firm goes belly up, the PE firm takes a far smaller loss. If they make boat loads of money, they pay taxes on every dime of income.

[erfalf]

Ironically, the accounting standards boards are all trying to force PE firms to value their investments more fairly for investors statements. Pretty much all that it has accomplished is to create an extremely non-linear income pattern. It makes investors far more crazy than the more conservative method that was employed previously.

[Teatownclown]

lol

[Gaspar]

lol

Can we get through one day without some form of religious ridicule from you?