Mitt’s Moment: TIME Talks to Romney About Business, Budgets and Beliefs

  • Share
  • Read Later

Managing editor Rick Stengel and senior correspondent Michael Crowley spoke with the Republican presidential candidate on Tuesday for the Sept. 3 issue of TIME, now available online to subscribers. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Peter Hapak for TIME

RICK STENGEL: So I thought I’d begin jumping off from your dad. The rationale for your candidacy is, I’m a businessman. I know how to fix the economy. I’d love for you to talk about the kind of perspective you have as someone who wasn’t a businessman in the way your dad was, the CEO of a manufacturing company, but someone in private equity and a consultant. What are those attributes that you have that will help you as President in a way that’s different than the conventional view of the businessman?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, consulting offered me an opportunity to see a lot of different businesses in different regions of the world, to see how textiles were being affected by foreign competition, how technology was changing. Telecommunications I was involved with in the very early days of what we now call fiber optic. At that time, we called it optical wave guide, which had been developed by Corning. I had the chance to work in heavy manufacturing with Outboard Marine Corp. [which made] Johnson and Evinrude engines. So I got a chance to work in a number of different industries and see how they were being affected by global affairs and how they made decisions. And I don’t know that that was particularly different than the experience my dad had. His was a very in-depth — he was working in manufacturing and also competing with international firms. I think regardless of one’s experience in the private sector, you gain an appreciation for how decisions are made by business people, how competition works, the impact of incentives on consumer behavior. And how you solve difficult challenges.

One thing I’d note also about the experience in the private sector and that is a recognition that if you stand still, if you keep doing what you’ve been doing in the past, you will be passed by others. In the private sector, there is always innovation. There’s always change. There’s always improving productivity, and if you’re not leading that, you’ll be passed and ultimately go out of business. So there’s an urgency to constantly update and renew and to rethink your enterprise.

As I look at government, in some respects because people in government don’t recognize that they are in a competition with governments of other nations, they tend to think there isn’t a need to change the way things have been done. And there’s not a need to become more productive, which means more output per person. Instead, we add more and more and more people. Businesses don’t add more and more people unless they’re growing, unless they’re selling more product, reaching more consumers. Government grows without bounds because it can, and at some point it weighs down the entire nation.

STENGEL: If you look at the regulatory environment for the banks now — and there are basically five big banks that, in terms of assets, disproportionately outweigh everybody else — is there a situation of moral hazard now related to those banks? And what would you do to reform the financial sector? Would you bring something back like Glass-Steagall?

ROMNEY: I think Dodd-Frank has contributed to a concentration of banking assets in the hands of a small number of banks. By designating certain banks as being too big to fail — strategically important banks — it makes it more difficult for the banks not so designated to attract customers and to expand their business. What you’ve seen as a result is a concentration in the hands of a handful of banks that now has greater systemic threat than what even existed before.

The right course was not to say that this handful of banks will be protected by the government, implying therefore that all the rest of the banks are on their own, because smart depositors will all move toward the banks that are protected by government. It had the opposite effect of what was advertised. What was advertised was that we would keep the too-big-to-fail banks from getting bigger, but the result of the legislation is just the opposite.

What we need to do is to make it easier for the community and local banks and regional banks to succeed and thrive, because they, after all, are the places where small and medium-size businesses get their funding. So the whole idea of designating a handful of banks as the government-protected too-big-to-fail banks is the wrong course.

Now, we do need to have regulation in the banking industry. Extensive regulation is appropriate in an industry that has such an impact on the overall economy. We have to look at what the causes were of the last crisis and take action to prevent those causes from reappearing. What kinds of things come to mind include capital requirements, levels of leverage which are appropriate and inappropriate, banks maintaining risk in assets which they gather. Specifically, I’m referring to the idea [that] if a bank originates a loan or a mortgage that it should be on the hook for some portion of the loss if that loan or mortgage fails. These kinds of provisions, I think, would be directly applicable to the kind of crisis that we experienced before. There are others who suggest, Well, let’s go back to Glass-Steagall and separate commercial banking from investment banking. But interestingly, that was not a cause of the last crisis. Trying to solve problems that did not exist may be counterproductive.

MICHAEL CROWLEY: Critics are saying the math in your budget does not add up. The Tax Policy Center issued a report that your campaign was critical of. But they’ve gone back and rerun the numbers, taking into account some of the criticisms from your campaign, using some new assumptions, and they say the three conditions of cutting taxes — revenue neutrality and not raising taxes on the middle class — can’t coexist. And Erskine Bowles also said this — someone I know you have respect for — in the Washington Post. What are these critics missing? Why is their math not adding up the way yours is?

(PHOTOS: TIME’s Mitt Romney Interview, Behind the Scenes)

ROMNEY: The basic foundation and premises of my plan are No. 1, we don’t reduce taxes or the share of taxes paid by the highest-income individuals. The highest-income individuals will get to pay the same share of taxes they pay today. No. 2, we won’t raise taxes on middle-income families. Middle-income families will not pay a greater share of the taxes either. So those are the beginning principles and the most fundamental principles.

So if people go back and try to assess our plan and ignore those two principles, they’re obviously making a mistake. When they create assumptions as you pointed out, this Tax Policy Center says we’re going to put some assumptions in place, it’s like no, no, no. Start off with those assumptions. The key assumptions are the highest-income people don’t pay a smaller share and middle-income people don’t see any tax increase and also don’t pay a greater share of the tax burden.

Then we look to say, All right, if we bring down the tax rates, marginal tax rates by approximately 20% and at the same time limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, we anticipate seeing two effects. One is that there will be by virtue of limiting deductions and exemptions additional revenue, despite the fact that the rate has come down. And No. 2, there will be additional growth.

And I know that many in the modeling community do not want to assume growth with changes in tax policy. I do. I happen to believe that lower marginal rates encourage higher economic growth, put more people to work, bring more businesses with more corporate profits, and all of these things contribute additional revenue.

CROWLEY: Would it be fair to call that supply-side economics?

ROMNEY: I’m not sure that’s the term I would use. What I would point out [is] that for decades people have spoken about dynamic scoring of tax policy. Let’s look at it in the reverse. Let’s say, for instance, that we were to increase the tax on capital to 90% of capital gains. Nondynamic scoring would say there would be no change in the amount of capital gains achieved and therefore there would be a huge increase in revenues. Dynamic scoring would say, in fact, if you’re going to tax something at 90%, people aren’t going to do much of it and you’re not going to get much revenue.

As a matter of fact, with capital gains taxes, a lot of studies have shown that if you raise the rates, you actually don’t get more tax revenues because of the dynamic effect of reducing the amount of capital gains people recognize. So my plan likewise takes into play, takes into account the growth impact of changes in tax policy and as we have modeled it. It’s been — this is an effort that’s been led by Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and now dean of the Columbia Business School. We look through our model, look at the growth effect as well as the additional revenue impact of reducing or eliminating certain deductions for people at the high end, and we’re able to achieve the revenue targets that we seek.

STENGEL: Could you be more specific about those deductions and which ones you would eliminate? I’ve been reading some of your interviews lately, and I feel like you’re sneaking up on eliminating the home-mortgage deduction for high-net-worth individuals. Is there something you’re willing to say that’s more specific about which deductions you would eliminate?

(PHOTOS: Political Pictures of the Week, Aug. 11–17)

ROMNEY: I know our Democrat friends would love to have me specify one or two so they could amass the special interest to fight that effort.

STENGEL: Could you do three or four?

ROMNEY: There are a wide array of ways to limit deductions and exemptions for people at the high end, and those options are ones which would be worked out with Congress on a collaborative basis. I’ll note that Simpson-Bowles likewise took an approach of saying, Look, these deductions and exemptions can be limited in a way that is approved by Congress. They did not go into the specific line by line as to which ones would be limited in which way but said that’s something to be developed through the normal legislative process.

And there are a number of options that people have spoken in the past about, where one might say the total deduction you’re going to get is limited by a certain amount and you can choose: Is it your home mortgage? Is it your charitable contribution? You can make it a combination of those things. That’s one model.

There’s another model that says there’s a certain deduction we’re not going to continue for people at the high end. There’s another that limits all the deductions at a certain level. There’s a whole array of ways of limiting deductions for individuals at high-income levels. And that’s a choice that would be made in consultation with Congress.

STENGEL: And you’d be open to some of the situations that you describe?

ROMNEY: I would be willing to discuss a wide array of options with members of Congress, recognizing that we want to maintain provisions that encourage housing, charitable contributions and health care.

CROWLEY: Governor, your campaign allowed reporters into church services on Sunday. And I wonder, is that an indication that you feel that you might want to be opening yourself up a bit more, allowing the public to get to know you better and particularly to see a bit more of your religious life?

ROMNEY: You know, this is just one of the interesting things that happens in the media, and I’ll say this parenthetically, our church services are always open. The media is always able to come into our church services. I didn’t invite anyone in. I didn’t speak to anyone in the media. They happened to follow me where I go, and they’ve been in our church services many times in the past and probably will in the future. So I don’t make any invitation to the media to ever be with me. [Laughter.]

That being said, people are certainly free to learn more about my religious beliefs and the practices of my faith and what role I’ve had in my church. You know, I do recognize and I feel very comfortable with people taking a good look at how I’ve lived my life, and obviously my faith is a big part of that. For quite a number of years, I was very involved in being a pastor of a congregation where I attended church, and I had pretty extensive interaction with a large number of individuals and families that were the potential beneficiaries of my counseling advice. So that’s obviously part of my life, which I expect people to take a look at.

STENGEL: Are there any misconceptions that Americans have about your faith and your church that you feel like, Gee, I wish people only know X or I wish they didn’t think Y?

ROMNEY: I’m sure there are many misconceptions about any religion, but I feel it’s the responsibility of the faith itself to clarify any of those misconceptions. My run for office is devoted to the needs of the nation and not to the need my church might have to clarify positions.

CROWLEY: A quick question about the campaign. You said President Obama was running, I believe the phrase was, a campaign of hate. Do you think President Obama hates you personally? And how do you feel about him now?

ROMNEY: [Laughs.] I think that the President’s campaign has taken on a course of divisiveness and attack which is very different than the campaign of hope and change which he described in his first run for office. And in some cases, it’s super PACs that are working on his behalf, but he refuses to distance himself from what they’ve said, and I’ve been accused by super PACs or by his campaign of a whole series of things which I think are taking the campaign into a very low and unfortunate place.

(PHOTOS: The Rich History of Mitt Romney)
When I became the presumptive nominee of the party, the President called me and congratulated me and said that he thought the nation would benefit from an honest and open debate of the issues in the course forward. I agreed with him. But I have yet to see that from his campaign. Instead, it has been one attack after the other — one accusation — all of which or most of which have been distortions or misguided. And I think it’s beneath the office of the presidency to engage in a campaign of the nature that he has pursued.

My campaign is focused on his policies and on the failure of those policies, in my view. And I’ll continue to point out our differences in policy and things I think he’s doing wrong from a policy standpoint. But I will not waste a campaign attacking him as an individual. I’ve not tried to divide Americans between one class or another or one location or another or one occupation or another. I happen to feel that we are united as a nation, and that’s a source of strength. And the divisiveness and the personal character assassination, I think, is an unfortunate course, and I don’t think it will be a successful one.

CROWLEY: And you hold him personally accountable for that character assassination?

ROMNEY: Well, I’m responsible for what happens in my campaign. He’s responsible for what happens in his. And if people in my effort say things that I find repugnant or offensive, I will correct those things, remove those things and make sure that people know I disagree with them.

STENGEL: Let’s go to policy for a second. By the end of this year, the first troops will start coming back from Afghanistan, according to the plan President Obama has outlined. Is that too soon? Would you keep more troops there? How is your policy as far as Afghanistan is concerned different than the President’s?

ROMNEY: There are some similarities and some differences. I concurred with his decision to add surge troops to Afghanistan. I also concur with the timetable of bringing our troops home by the end of 2014.

There are some differences. I would not have announced publicly the withdrawal date of the end of 2014. That is something I would have kept between our military and the Afghan military and political leadership. I don’t think the Taliban and other forces ought to know the precise timetable of our plan.

Secondly, the drawdown on our surge troops, which begins in September, was the wrong timetable. The military asked the drawdown to begin in December, not September. The reason for that is that the fighting season is in full bloom in September, and withdrawing troops during a fighting season puts those troops, according to our military, in greater danger. I would have brought down those surge troops on the timetable proposed by the military, not a political timetable.

The next point is with regard to the campaign and re-election of [Afghan] President Karzai. That election should have been overseen by international and U.S. teams to make sure that it was seen as being credible and uncorrupted. It was not. It was seen by the Afghan people as being a corrupt election, and any counterinsurgency requires confidence on the part of the people that the individuals they have selected are legitimately elected. That was another mistake.

I’ll mention one more difference, a mistake, and that is when the military commanders suggested the surge troops needed to carry out the mission they’ve been given, this 40,000 in number. I would not have decided to give 30,000 instead. So those differences, 30,000 instead of 40,000; a public announcement of the withdrawal date as opposed to a private goal; withdrawing troops in September as opposed to December from the surge; and overseeing a fair and uncorrupted elections, those are differences that would have been part of my plan for Afghanistan. I think the President’s decisions put our mission there at greater risk than had we pursued the course I would have preferred.

CROWLEY: You said your aspiration would be to defeat the Taliban. I think this came up in a debate. Do you think that is still a possible goal? In other words, a defeat that you would define as forcing a surrender of the Taliban on our terms, as opposed to a negotiated settlement where we would not get everything we want — is that still possible, given the realities of the military situation in Afghanistan?

ROMNEY: What I would like to see in Afghanistan is that the Afghan troops are able to maintain the sovereignty of their nation. I do not expect the Taliban as an organization or as a group of people are going to disappear. They will continue to be certainly in Pakistan, and I presume they will continue to be in certain corners of Afghanistan. But I want to see the Afghan military of sufficient capacity and strength and know-how to be able to defend the sovereignty of their nation and keep it from being overrun by the Taliban.

CROWLEY: We would like to ask one news-of-the-day question. I’m sure you’re anticipating this. [Regarding] a Senate candidate in Missouri, Todd Akin — we’re familiar with your statement essentially repudiating his remarks — do you think he needs to get out of that race and allow another candidate to take his place?

ROMNEY: I think I really said what I want to about the topic, which is that I can’t defend what he said. I can’t defend him. I think his remarks were offensive and inappropriate and wrong. And I hope he gives very careful consideration today to the course ahead and takes action which will be in the best interests of the things he cares most deeply about.

231 comments
woaikn1314
woaikn1314

平时不好好学英语 关键时刻掉链子 如此之多的词汇不懂 惭愧啊

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

This was a great interview with Mr Romney, soon to be President Romney. It can't come soon enough.

Godzilla1960
Godzilla1960

Yeah, he will take his place next to Presidents Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and McCain.

ChowT
ChowT

WE shall see.

Hughes Hunt
Hughes Hunt

Did you know that Willard Mitt Romney is actually a psychopath, according to the Hare Psychopathy checklist? To Romney, being presumptive GOP candidate is a self-fulfilling Mormon prophesy!  Wait for surprises and revelations later from Gawker.com and Wikileaks about Romney and Ryan on or before November 5, 2012. Moreover, did you know that ,  Senator Harry Reid is correct about the fact that Romney has paid zero taxes for ten years? Furthermore, Romney, for having committed yet undisclosed criminal acts,  is a traitor, unpatriotic at least and anti-America at best. More revelations from Gawker.com and Wikileaks later, at the right place, at the right time, so that Willard Mitt Romney, a.k.a. Mr. Pants on Fire,  wished  he never ran for president. Did you know that Romney has been preparing, training  for president the past  twenty years,   but he has essentially been running for president since 2006?   Who knew that what is known about Willard Mitt Romney is just a tip of the iceberg of yet undisclosed criminal acts,  unprosecuted   temporarily due to money, power, influence and insufficient evidence,  for which reason there are 33 billionaire donors in  his campaign of mass deception? If only you, 99 per centers  including die-hard Republicans, subconsciously blind to the truth due to ignorance, tradition, twisted logic and peer pressure, let your eyes be opened to the truth,  based on all things considered,  that Romney fits perfectly the profile of  a psychopath,  according  to the checklist of  Hare Psychopathy, you would know beyond the shadow of doubt that Willard Mitt Romney cannot be trusted, and is evidently disqualified and not fit to be president.

Matthew Johnson
Matthew Johnson

Every time I hear Mitt speak, I think of another Republican candidate -- Thomas Dewey!

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

Let's hope he's more successful, politically speaking.

ChowT
ChowT

Successful at lying

Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan
Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan

This party is moviated by money. They do not care about the American people and their votes and how they vote  proves it.  These oil men are trying to take the election by supporting Mitt Romney and funding Republican Freshmen.........Google it.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report shedding

light on the vast Koch network and how it operates. The report shows

that Charles and David Koch have used the considerable wealth (they are

worth a combined $44 billion) to push policies that put their profits ahead of the interests of most Americans.

The report finds:

Grassroots organizing for big business. The Koch brothers use their

considerable wealth to bankroll the right wing, including the Tea

Party. This serves the purpose of furthering not only their right-wing

ideology but also their bottom line.

Koch Industries has a lot to gain

from gutting government oversight and electing candidates who oppose

government regulation, especially in the oil-and-gas industry.

$85 million to 85 think tanks. Identification of at least $85 million

the Koch brothers have given to at least 85 right-wing think tanks and

advocacy groups over the past decade and a half.

State

organizing. The Koch brothers are active at the state level, spending

$5.2 million on candidates and ballot measures in 34 states since 2003.

They donated directly to 13 governors that won election last year.

Over 70% of the GOP Freshman. The Kochs donated directly to 62 of the 87 members of the House GOP freshman class. 2012. The Kochs are not going away. In fact, they have already

pledged to raise $88 million for the 2012 election and have started

scheduling events for potential Republican presidential candidates.

Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan
Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan

Republicans for the second time blocked legislation that would increase oil companies' liability for oil spill damages, setting off criticism from Democrats seeking to make BP pay for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Tuesday blocked a bill Democrats have put forward to raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion. He said on the Senate floor he agrees the cap should be raised, but the Senate should "wait and see where the cap should be."

President Obama released a statement saying he is disappointed by the Republicans' objections.

"This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill," he said. "I urge the Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics and join in a bipartisan effort to protect taxpayers and demand accountability from the oil companies."

Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan
Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan

Today, the Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report

shedding light on the vast Koch network and how it operates. The report

shows that Charles and David Koch have used the considerable wealth

(they are worth a combined $44 billion) to push policies that put their profits ahead of the interests of most Americans.

The report finds:

Grassroots organizing for big business. The Koch brothers use their

considerable wealth to bankroll the right wing, including the Tea

Party. This serves the purpose of furthering not only their right-wing

ideology but also their bottom line. Koch Industries has a lot to gain

from gutting government oversight and electing candidates who oppose

government regulation, especially in the oil-and-gas industry.

$85 million to 85 think tanks. Identification of at least $85 million

the Koch brothers have given to at least 85 right-wing think tanks and

advocacy groups over the past decade and a half.  State

organizing. The Koch brothers are active at the state level, spending

$5.2 million on candidates and ballot measures in 34 states since 2003.

They donated directly to 13 governors that won election last year.

Over 70% of the GOP Freshman. The Kochs donated directly to 62 of the 87 members of the House GOP freshman class. 2012. The Kochs are not going away. In fact, they have already

pledged to raise $88 million for the 2012 election and have started

scheduling events for potential Republican presidential candidates. (See Block oil bill)

Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan
Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan

 

The  Center for American Progress Action Fund released a report shedding

light on the vast Koch network and how it operates. The report shows

that Charles and David Koch have used the considerable wealth (they are

worth a combined $44 billion) to push policies that put their profits ahead of the interests of most Americans.

The report finds:

Grassroots organizing for big business. The Koch brothers use their

considerable wealth to bankroll the right wing, including the Tea

Party. This serves the purpose of furthering not only their right-wing

ideology but also their bottom line.

Koch Industries has a lot to gain

from gutting government oversight and electing candidates who oppose

government regulation, especially in the oil-and-gas industry.

$85 million to 85 think tanks. Identification of at least $85 million

the Koch brothers have given to at least 85 right-wing think tanks and

advocacy groups over the past decade and a half.

State

organizing. The Koch brothers are active at the state level, spending

$5.2 million on candidates and ballot measures in 34 states since 2003.

They donated directly to 13 governors that won election last year.

Over 70% of the GOP Freshman. The Kochs donated directly to 62 of the 87 members of the House GOP freshman class. 2012. The Kochs are not going away. In fact, they have already

pledged to raise $88 million for the 2012 election and have started

scheduling events for potential Republican presidential candidates.  (See Blocked Bills)

This report is intended to be a guide to help progressives map out the

vast network of influence the Koch brothers have built over the last

decades. By exposing the Koch brothers’ agenda and shedding light on how

they operate, progressives can force a public debate that will show

that the Koch brothers are outside the mainstream of most Americans and

that they are putting their self-interest and right wing agenda ahead of

middle-class families.  Google 

Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan
Leona Ann Robinson-Tjan

This guy is brought by the Koch brothers and the wealthiest people in the country.  And he is a proven liar and he hides his money.  You do not know what you will get with him and you suppose to trust him.   The GOP blocked every small business incentives, jobs bill every thing that Obama tried to do to help America's people and the scam artist wants to be President.  Google this...it is coming in a news cycle.  Every body is getting their ducts in order on this one:

Mitt Romney Tax Returns May Have Employed Legally Dubious Maneuvers, Tax Experts Say

WASHINGTON -- Tax experts who have begun to examine the Bain Capital

documents released Thursday by Gawker are raising questions as to

whether presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has paid all the taxes he owed.

At issue are two tax-avoidance techniques employed by Bain Capital, the

firm founded by Romney, which have been commonly used in the private

equity world but have come under increasing legal scrutiny.

The

first scheme involves owning U.S. dividend-paying stocks in an offshore

account and pretending, for accounting purposes, not to own the stock.

Instead, the taxpayer tells the Internal Revenue Service that he owns a

derivative product that is identical in every way to the stock -- except

it isn't the stock, so therefore no U.S. taxes are owed. It's called a

"total return equity swap," because the buyer still gets the benefit --

the "total return" -- of owning the stock, or equity.

"This use

of total return equity swaps, such as to avoid the U.S. dividend

withholding tax, was very widespread for more than a decade, and may not

be dead yet, although the IRS issued a shot-across-the-bow Notice

concerning the practice in 2010," writes Daniel Shaviro, the Wayne Perry

Professor of Taxation at New York University School of Law. "But

taxpayers who engaged in it to avoid the dividend withholding tax were

coming perilously close to committing tax fraud, in cases where the

economic equivalence to direct ownership was too great."

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

 Blah blah blah. Waaaaaaaa!

+ hate- monger.

ChowT
ChowT

Who is a hate monger? You?

Hughes Hunt
Hughes Hunt

Be vigilant and wake up America before it is too late! Praise be to Gawker.com, Wikileaks and the power of the internet. Doubtlessly with the revelations, it is confirmed that Romney is a cheat, liar, fraud and a criminal unfit to be President. He can never be trusted at his word. Since the wheels of justice turn ever so slowly, Romney has yet remained untouchable due to money, power, influence and the perverse double standard of justice for the rich and for the poor. It is interesting to note the overzealousness of Romney, Ryan and the entire Republican Tea Potties in buying the presidency at all costs with the backing of 33 billionaire donors to his campaign of mass deception, in their hunger for absolute power, total control and unbridled monopoly in the USA and in a new world order. Is it any wonder then that in the history of the USA, President Barack Obama is the first black United States President after 235 years of white monopoly of the White House?

mahenry
mahenry

Mr. Romney's analysis of his budget departs markedly from the way the experts see it - big positives for the 1%, big negatives for the 99%, and more wealth moving to the top.  He says we are deliberately misconstruing it.  But the numbers do not work.   I have to ask whether he is under pressure to pretend otherwise.

ChowT
ChowT

Mitt Romney, all about him only. Wont pay or show taxws.

mahenry
mahenry

Interesting that Mr. Romney advocates financial regulations, while rejecting Dodd-Frank. But Mr. Romney does not mention the authority to break up the too big banks, and he does not mention consummer protections as measures he favors. "Extensive regulation is appropriate in an industry that has such an impact on the overall economy," he said. But apparently he does not believe regulations should have real teeth. On the stump he talks about "excessive and costly" regulations as a company and a job-killer - shackles, he calls them. But as a businessman he knows that without cops on the corners our economy self destructs; he just doesn't want to say it.

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

He said he would not have set up the 'too big to fail' conundrum. How much more clear can he be? Is everything black and white to you?

ChowT
ChowT

Mitt said this, Mitt said that..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

mahenry
mahenry

Interesting that Mr. Romney attributes job growth to increased consummer demand.  "Businesses don't add more employees unless they are growing."  It must be obvious that the best jobs policy is to stimulate growth in incomes for the lower and middle economic classes, because that grows the market.  Yet Mr. Romney calls that irrational - growing big government "without bounds".  His position seems self-contradictory.

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

 That's only because of your incorrect thinking. Again, your criticisms are simple minded and black and white. BTW, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

ChowT
ChowT

Ask the Bishop.

pjh4py
pjh4py

Romney's secret abortion profits. There are good Republicans out there. Romney is not one of them. If the GOP doesn't dump this guy soon he is going to destroy their reputation for many years to come. Nobody will believe in the Republican party anymore, TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire)August 16, 2012 — Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY"rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profitsin his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush." Steve Baldwin,former Republican Whip of the California State Assembly, said recent journalismabout the actual date of Romney's departure from Bain Capital "has almostcertainly revealed the real reason Romney refuses to release any more than twoyears of personal IRS data: Bain's craven investment in Stericycle corporation— a vendor to Planned Parenthood — lined Romney's pockets with profits from theincineration of aborted human fetuses. Mitt, it's time to disclose your taxreturns and everything else about Stericycle." Baldwin, alsoformer Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), aninfluential conservative organization in Washington, said, "Tampa's GOPdelegates will shame themselves if they don't conscientiously abstain fromRomney on the first ballot to derail the worst nominee in our party's history.We're convinced Mitt Romney is hiding Bain abortion profits in his taxreturns." Baldwin cited the following facts and sources to back up hischarges:- Despite claimingto have quit Bain in early 1999, Romney evidently controlled Stericycle viaBain for years thereafter: In July, The Boston Globe reported evidence thatRomney maintained control of Bain and its investments for years after the datehe claimed to have relinquished it. The Globe cited a June, 2012 federal filingby Romney's campaign which said, "Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney hasnot had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involvedin the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.'' That, however,contradicted the findings of a July 2, 2012 Mother Jones investigation:"Citing SEC documents, the magazine said Romney had control of BainCapital's shares in Stericycle, a medical waste company, in November 1999.Talking Points Memo reported this week on additional SEC filings listingRomney's position with Bain in July 2000 and February 2001."- Bain joined a $75million investment in Stericycle: The Mother Jones story (entitled "RomneyInvested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses, GovernmentDocuments Show"),cited prior reporting by Huffington Post during the early2012 presidential primaries to show that Romney "had been part of aninvestment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposalfirm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing abortedfetuses collected from family planning clinics....But Bain Capital, the privateequity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company saidRomney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympicsin Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to do with the deal. The matter neverbecame a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with theSecurities and Exchange Commission — and TAMPA, FL (MMD Newswire)August 16, 2012 — Republican spokesmen for a rising "DUMP ROMNEY"rebellion today charged that Mitt Romney is "hiding Bain abortion profitsin his tax returns" from investments that "would make Herod blush."

omafea
omafea

Mitt Romney is a coward . The evangelicals will not vote for a Morman now that they threw Todd Adkin under the bus . God don't even like Mitt Romney . Look at the direction of Issac .

omafea
omafea

Stop lieing stupid idiot . The stimulus didn't fail . Paul Ryan voted for the same stimulus . Then Paul Ryan voted for the right to rape women and children with Todd Akin . A picture is worth 1,000 words . Where's. Mitt ROMNEYS tax returns ? Draft Dodger In Cheif . Nobody created a depicit large than Ronald Reagan . God don't even like Mitt Romney that's why Isacc is one the way to your weak convention that nobody cares about . The evangelicals will not vote a hethan Morman . Lol....

ChowT
ChowT

Quote Mitt Romney= folks rich and poor, 'Trust me'.

Folks ask, how do we trust you.

Mitt Romney= just trust me' you people'.

Folks-= what are your programs for the betterment of the country?

Mitt Romney= well, first of all I make a lot of money. created a lot of jobs in China, put all my savings offshore and I pay very  little or no taxes at all? You see I am very sucessful for 'Myself' only.

Folks= You have not answered our questions at all?

Mitt Romney = Just trust me.

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

 " I pay very  little or no taxes at all"

ChowT = ignorant liar.

ChowT
ChowT

Ignorant on how to evade taxes.

xXFireandIceXx
xXFireandIceXx

Mitt's economic outlooks is quite sharp. Even though I'm a Democrat, I have to say that his financial background does help him. If only he could have been a Democrat candidate, I would fully support him. However, I think he's a slave to the GOP establishment. What a waste of an otherwise smart man.

alanphillips
alanphillips

THE ELECTION OF A NEW PRESIDENT (The Question Asked-ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN FOUR YEARS AGO?)

 

This question first asked in a Presidential debate was asked by nominee Ronald Reagan. A boy from Illinois, a life guard, an ordinary American that refused to believe the fallacy that government was the solution to problems. Reagan saw government instead as a major negative impact on a sick and dying economy through provision of silly regulations and job losses. The republican nominee would confront a lack luster economy, job loss, food and energy prices increase, taxes growing, an economic nightmare. The question was a powerful guide for those who would vote in the upcoming Presidential election-It has long passed the test of time and credibility and will provide the voter with guidance-ARE YOU BETTER  OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE  FOUR YEARS AGO?

WHAT HAVE MANY AMERICANS EXPERIENCED DURING THE PAST FOUR YEARS?

We are finishing a war in Afghanistan and a constant onslaught from international terrorism. Human and financial costs continue to mount even though we have declared an exit intention. Supposedly we are training native Afghanistan citizens to take over defense and policing, yet these same ranks of trained protectors have produced from their numbers some killers of our own brave American defenders. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to be used against Middle Eastern allies in intimidation and threat. North Korea remains war like and adventurous bellicose and seemingly unrestricted. Syria continues to kill its citizens supported by China and Russia who threaten America. Our foreign policy seems based upon ambivalence and fuzziness is encouraging our adversaries to warlike actions. ARE WE BETTER OFF IN FOREIGN POLICY?

In America we are struggling economically with less hope for the future, loss of jobs, a better life for our children, equity in our homes, retirement and annuities, foreign debt ballooning, banks not lending to any longer to main street. Cities forced to deal with bankruptcies, less policing, crime increasing, child sexual abuse, streets less safe and foreboding along with wholesale abortion. ARE WE BETTER OFF IN THE SECURITY AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS?

We are also experiencing a loss of constitutional freedoms in the public square. The freedom to worship as indivdually directed by Divine Providence as a guaranteed right seems threatened. Individuals are  Freedom of environmental protection by agencies with our lakes, streams, seas, and oceans. We witness Freedom of speech succumbing to the threats of hate speech and biased remarks. We lack  freedom to participate in decisions regarding taxation, guaranteeing no further assessments without true elected leader representation. Do we witness quasi bureaucratic representation resulting in needless and onerous regulations which enfeeble and weaken the smaller corporate efforts among us.

Is America wandering aimlessly through its journey without a master plan that leads to success and prosperity. Do we thoroughly understand the rhetoric about healthcare found in Congressional binders in Washington, D.C.. Do we have a functional budget approved by the national legislative body?. Should our elections be financed through super pacs and the nameless faceless wealthy of our citizens? Does the current American President understand the voters of the upcoming electorate? Does the C.E.O. know and understand American history and its ordinances.

America has ongoing challenges in the present and future. Most will be decided by the old and enduring question, ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO?

 

Alan G Phillips, Sr                                                                                                                                                                                           

Jackae
Jackae

1) In re the specifics of his deductions, etc., it's not just Democrats that would like to know these specifics, but the American people would like to know what they are. 2) Obama's campaign is not the only negative campaign - in fact, most of Romney's ads are negative.  

3) There is a "fighting season?" and it's more dangerous to pull our troops out during this "season." The troops should be brought out after the season is over. Why not bring the troops out BEFORE the season begins? 4) He would be "willing to discuss" the limitations of deductions in regard to the wealthy with Congress. Well, we know how that will turn out. 

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

 3) I guess you can't read. The military commanders have deemed it dangerous to pull troops out at this time. Oblamer set the schedule to help his reelection. That's a sad commentary on the commander-in-chief.

Jackae
Jackae

Yes, ArnoldLayne, I can read and understood that the commanders deemed it dangerous to pull out now. My comment was in regard to the statement that there is a "fighting season" and if that is so, and the commanders know of this "season," why do they decide to wait until it is over, rather than before it begins, to pull the troops out. Surely it would be more dangerous for the troops to remain during this so called fighting season rather than be pulled out before it even began. By waiting until the "season" is over, there is the possibility of more troops being killed whereas if they're not there when it begins, less injuries/deaths. So I guess you couldn't read either.   

Jackae
Jackae

I believe that that was my point, not just in regard to the President but also in regard to the commanders. Your argument seemed to be that Obama was wrong for wanting to pull the troops out earlier that the commanders. My point was that both were wrong for deciding to pull the troops out either in the middle of the "fighting season" or at the end of the season rather than pulling them out before the season even began.

ArnoldLayne
ArnoldLayne

 It's not a 'so-called' fighting season, it is what it is. And again, Obama set the schedule. The military wanted December, Oblamer said September. He could have said even earlier to avoid the fighting season. Got it?

Christopher London, Esq.
Christopher London, Esq.

 MITT ROMNEY - The Logical Case Against Mitt Romney by Mitt Romney

There has never in my life been a more hollow, fradulent, barren and soul less man, a veritably transparent phony to run for the Presidency than Mitt Romney. His friends and allies in the Republican Party have referred to the King of Bain as a shape-shifting political chameleon with no core principles or values. It strikes me as so odd that on the heels of the Financial Crisis of 2008, the uncovering of widespread fraud and dishonesty, including the Bernie Madoff and Ken Starr Ponzi Schemes, that a man who embodies all the worst characteristics of capitalism along with a veil of secrecy over his political, business and social record and whose persona resembles that of a barren, financial con-man and has the aura of an International Financial Racketeer, who shelters his funds in obscure tax havens around the world and who will not divulge any personal information and offers no opportunity for Americam voters to verifiy his veracity, is actually a serious candidate for the Presidency. How far has American fallen that a man who is so clearly and fundamentally dishonest, a man who is so NIXONIAN that even Richard Nixon is rolling over in his grave wondering how the hell this guy getting away with this stuff. Spiro Agnew wishes he could ask Romney for pointers. The following reasons illustrate why MITT ROMNEY = THE MORMON MADOFF:  https://www.facebook.com/note....

 

-I do not know who I am or what I believe in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... am Unknowable: http://opinionator.blogs.nytim...

-18 plus years running for office amp; I still do not know how to brand myself:http://tonightsforecastdark.bl...

-I have some 'Gray Areas': http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...

-I won't discuss my time as the King of Bain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...  or the Bain Games: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... or how I made my money, gutting America's manufacturing/industrial core, collapsing communities and seizing pension assets while leading the extraction of American Wealth: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...

-So maybe I raided a pension assets: http://mediatakeout.com/users/...

-I can't discuss my involvement in the Son of Boss Tax Avoidance Scam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... -Nor can I discuss "The Italian Job": http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... -I won't discuss my Off-Shore Accounts: http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...

-I won't discuss my Mormon Secrets: http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/... won't discuss my taxes: http://gawker.com/5936394/the-...

-I will not provide Americans with sufficient disclosure to verify my veracity to serve: http://christopherlondonblog.c...

-We've Given You People All You Need to Know: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

-I will not follow the lead of my father when it comes to my taxes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

-George Romney said 1 year of taxes could be a fluke: http://politicalgroove.com/201...

-I paid 13% in taxes: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat...

-I won't discuss my religion: http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/... -I won't tell you who I am or what I stand for: http://www.mittvmitt.com/-The Media won't even bother me anymore about my Tax Returns: http://crooksandliars.com/john...

-I am not a Crook amp; Liar: http://crooksandliars.com/karo...

-I am Secretive: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...

-I am alot like Richard Nixon: http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

-Maybe I am the New Richard Nixon: http://booksellersvsbestseller...

-Being like Richard Nixon is sort of weird: http://greaterreadingonline.co...

-Maybe it's me who is the real other, not Barack Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

-I won't stand up for women: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08...

-Matt Drudge is Gay and is in the tank for me: http://www.capecodtoday.com/bl...

-But I manipulated and fooled the gay community: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/...

-I invest principally outside the United States of America, not inside the United States of America: http://www.htrnews.com/article...

-I will talk to you about what I won't talk to you about: http://swampland.time.com/2012...

-I am not concerned about the very poor: http://crooksandliars.com/karo...

-My Partner is a Fake Christian http://www.catholics-united.or... with ATHIEST AYN RAND VALUES: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08... -Just Trust Me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... the Romney Con: http://www.saveamericafoundati...

Christopher London, Esq.
Christopher London, Esq.

There has never been a more hollow, transparent phony and utterly fraudulent man to run for the Presidency than Mitt Romney. His friends and allies refer to the King of Bain as a shape-shifting political chameleon with no core principles or values. It strikes me as so odd that on the heels of the Financial Crisis of 2008, the uncovering of widespread fraud and dishonesty, including the Bernie Madoff and Ken Starr Ponzi Schemes, that a man who embodies all the worst characteristics of a barren, financial con-man and has the aura of an International Financial Racketeer, who shelters his funds in obscure tax havens around the world and who will not divulge any personal information so that voters may verifiy his veracity, is actually a serious candidate for the Presidency. How far has American fallen that a man who is so clearly and fundamentally dishonest, a man who is so NIXONIAN that even Richard Nixon is rolling over in his grave wondering how is this guy getting away with this stuff. Spiro Agnew wishes he could ask Romney for pointers.Yet, while he offers nothing, says nothing, and provides no insight into who he is, what he stands for or even how he will govern says "TRUST ME" I have never in my entire life found a politician as truly repugnant as Mitt Romney. This man is BLATANT CON-MAN.

The following reasons illustrate why MITT ROMNEY = THE MORMON MADOFF: https://www.facebook.com/note....

-I do not know who I am or what I believe in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

-I am Unknowable: http://opinionator.blogs.nytim...

-I won't discuss my time as the King of Bain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... or the Bain Games: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... how I made my money: gutting America's manufacturing/industrial core, collapsing communities and seizing pension assets while sending jobs overseas and extracting massive fees for himself and Bain insiders

-I won't discuss my Off-Shore Accounts: http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...

-I won't discuss my taxes:

http://gawker.com/5936394/the-...

-I won't discuss my religion:http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/...

-I won't tell you who I am or what I stand for

-You People cannot see my taxes: http://christopherlondonblog.c...

-Just Trust Me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

-Join the Romney Con: http://www.saveamericafoundati...

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Move over to the left people, we have an Obama "Truth Squader" coming through on his tricycle.  

Please move to your left.  Do not blow your horn at him or he may explode with road rage while pumping his little legs as fast as they can go.

ChowT
ChowT

referring to yourself again?

BigDaddyHush
BigDaddyHush

America can't change until its political system changes. Its all about power and not about the people which it was originally made for. I refused to vote in the previous election, which was my first election after turning 18, because i didnt believe either candidate was fit for the job. This year I wont be voting again because I have that same belief. America not only needs a new president, but America needs a leader of the people and for the people who will operate not on the basis of power and greed, but one that works to improve the quality of life for American citizens. Politics in the country is completely screwed up and I dont see any positive change in the near future. 

Drake Mallard
Drake Mallard

 

However, the stadium where the GOP will be announcing “We Built This!” was financed primarily by the government. The Tampa Bay Times Forum arena, which houses the Tampa Bay Lightning, was built in 1996 as the “Ice Palace” with 62% government funds. The total budget for the project was $139 million, of which public money accounted for $86 million and team money accounted for $53 million.

loveyourhome
loveyourhome

was that government money by any chance  collected from taxing people and businesses? 

MrObvious
MrObvious

Was the profit from the games in that arena by any chance placed in the owners pockets or used to repay the tax payers?

loveyourhome
loveyourhome

again the government takes in money from taxes lends it out gets it back and also gets taxes off the profits what a deal. so should the business and owners be able to do the same?

loveyourhome
loveyourhome

I would say both, and again paying taxes on the profit.