Politics Romney - Is he ready?

Could be that Romney is not as greedy and some think he is and he gave large sums of his wealth to others. In 2011 he gave 30% of his income to charity, his accountant said he has given on average 13.5% to charity over the past 20 years. Personally, I have never come close to those percentages. I know that some people will give big percentages of their wealth upon their death, but how many do it every year over a long period of time?

 

His effective federal income tax rate of 14% was lower than most middle class workers.

 

Could it be Romney has more cash stashed overseas then anyone could possibly imagine? Would make his refusal to release his tax returns, like his father stated would be the right thing to do, make sense.

Plus his religion pretty much says "give the church 10% or lose your chance to share time with God on the good planet Kolob." People who give give charity donations to their church to get into heaven or stay out of hell don't impress me much. Party because their motive is skewed and party because I don't find funding young peoples travels around the world to try convincing other people to join their church (and fork over 10% of their income to that church) that much of a charity. Mainly I just consider it irritating to have them ring my door bell 2-3 times a week. But I'm sure for Mitt it was a lot more fun to travel the French countryside then it would have been to go help out the war effort, which he supported, in "Nam.

 

I suspect there is more money stashed in various places. At the very least, it's known that there is another $100M in a fund in the names of his children.

Oh, and he has a SEP/IRA worth who knows how much? (But believed to be up to around another $100M).

 

Those who benefit tax-wise year after year from charitable donations with the added benefit of being able to fulfill their religious requirements. Not impressed, (see Tully's post above) even with the understanding that in Romney's case the donation dollars exceeded the deductions . In gauging percentages, isn't it sort of necessary to know the individual's entire income/net worth in order to make an actual calculation? Do we know what this figure is?

In 2011 their net worth (if true) was $250 mil. The $4 mil they donated was only 1.6% of their net worth. True, their income for that year was only a mere $21 mil or so, give or take a few hundred thousand dollars but logic and reason is on the side of calculating such percentages based on net worth when it comes to those in the Romneys. wealth bracket. It's still a lot of money, but not extraordinary and they are not dipping into their net worth to make the "sacrifice". The wealthy have the advantage of being in a position to give more without suffering greatly, or very much at all.

Do we know which charities he's donating to?

Edit: In 2010, Mitt and Anne gave $3 mil to charities, 50% of which went to the LDS church, 650K spread around to some orgs that fight diseases and as they are big contributors to BYU, it can probably be assumed that some of it went there, as well.

From 1990-2010, their charitable donations as portions of income averaged only 13.5%. Considering that the average for most Mormon households is $10.6%, the Romneys' percentage doesn't strike me as outside of the norm for Mormons, especially considering how much of it goes directly into the Mormon church coffers and the fact that I assume they are much wealthier than the average Mormon.

And what might one infer from the sudden and substantial increase in donations over the past year? Hmmm. Could it have anything to do with the sort of image he's wanted to project to an electorate? Is it possible he was looking to impress someone just like you, Ace?

 

IRA's a have a max dollar amount per person per year, right? So how does he end up with a 100 million in one? I mean if he's not 550 years old it's kind of hard to explain and one of the reasons his tax returns are not forth coming.

 

It's a mystery! .. The Secret Behind Romney’s Magical IRA - Bloomberg

 

Does not pass the smell test. In my option or opinion.

 

True. From the article:

 

"Disclosure? We'd love to hand over our figures but surely you understand how important it is for us to protect the privacy of our investors."

 

taxes, china, off shore accounts, iras and such are child's play compared to the high crimes and misdemeanors commited by the obama administration. surely, you can't be serious.

 

My concerns with Romeny are some large and some small. Mainly my biggest concerns involve his willingness to have his chain yanked by the extreme right. I think deep down he's a moderate, not really that different from Obama really. But he's shown again and again he's willing to "do as told" by his right wing owners. Take for example yesterday- in the morning during an interview he tells the reporter something like he can't think of any "pro-choice" legislation he's interested in changing. Within the hour his spokes person sent out a PR stating Romney is strongly "pro-life" and would sign any law that would overturn Roe V. Wade. Often his mouth says something his handlers reject quickly. Yesterday it took less then an hour. Now I'm pro-choice though not very fond of abortions, it's complicated. What isn't complicated for me is my standing on foreign policy and going to war... again. The fact that Romeny allows his owners to tug on his chain so easily and the fact he's let people like John Bolton onto his "team" scares the crap out of me.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2012 at 1:58 PM ---

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly are these "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

 

bombing libya without any kind of authorization from congress. specifically asking that NDAA apply to us citizens (indefinite detention), drone striking citizens without any trial, running guns into mexico to blame the second amendment to name a few.

to me these are far more serious than bending the rules to make money.

 

The running guns into Mexico started under Bush Jr. In fact most if not all these types of things have been done by previous POTUS's. Clinton didn't have drones but tried to take out OBL with cruise missiles, don't remember him asking congress for permission. Look at Bush's "Patriot Act." How many civil liberties were stomped on by it? I met a lawyer at a meeting years ago. His name was Brandon Mayfield. A few years later I saw his face on the news. Google his name and see if you find any reason he might not be a fan of the right and it's civil liberties record.

Almost all the things you mention are reasons the left isn't that thrilled with Obama. But if you think a guy who put John Bolton on his national security team is going to increase your civil liberties I think you're going to be sadly disappointed.

I think both sides have gone over the cliff on the Constitution and we should be doing whatever we can, legally and sanely, to get things turned around.

On this issue I don't see a lot of light between Obama and Mitt, though with guys like Bolton in Mitt's ear I prefer Obama.

For that reason and the fact that Mitt's completely out of touch with working families I'll throw my marble into Obama's bucket this go around, already have in fact.

 

To take it a step further, the notion that Fast &Furious was a nefarious Obama administration plot to take away Second Amendment rights is as crazy ass a conspiracy as the more recent one about arming the IRS or Social Security Admin. to confiscate guns.

Libya fell under the War Powers Act. All of the other actions would fall under the expanded power given to the president under the 2001 AUMF enacted by Congress, with legal justifications provided on numerous occasions by Bush White House attorneys and Bush AGs and DoJ attorneys.

the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.​

I dont agree with it, but until Congress repeals the AUMF, Bush set the legal precedent for any future president to use the same justification.

If Bolton has any influence in a Romney administration, I wouldnt be surprised to see US boots on the ground in Iran and/or Syria.

I suspect "enhanced interrogation" (torture) would return as well.

 

I don't agree with everything you state but my disagreement are minimal really. My question is do you think these issues would be less or more of a problem if Romeny is elected?