Democrats with offshore bank accounts!!!

[Dick Tuck]

Why is it always a deflection if the one of those in the discussion is running for Presdient? If your intention is to hold a candidate to a particular standard, should you not also hold members of your own party to the same standard?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Tool.

The reason that is so 100% true is the equality clause in all matters of being an American.

I was taught at my grandmother's knee what equality means. It means that the poorest citizens who earn a living as well as wealthy individuals as well as politicians get one and only one vote; that everyone is equal under the law. She also believed that those who are given much, much is expected. And of course, the "Whatever you do, do as much good as you can every way you can to all you can as long as you can..."

Is investing in another country illegal? If it is, why are we sending tax dollars to other countries? So only big shots can be givers and takers? That doesn't sound very American to me. Seems all should follow that allowance if they freely so choose to do so. I believe such is called "the pursuit of happiness." I was involved in a womens' church circle that was supporting a womens' sewing factory in India, when money was hard to come by in that country. We sent money, sewing machines, thread, anything we could, to ensure they would have the necessary startup materials to manufacture goods for sale so they could buy food for their starving families. I'm not sorry I supported that. It helped people who had no other way of earning money for digging a community water well, a food ration, school necessities, books for their school library, etc. (before the age of computers). Without some foreign investments made by Americans, even today, entire map sections would have people starving there if it weren't for some conscientious American putting his or her money in a group of people as willing to fight for their very survival as those seamstresses we helped were. We did likewise for a Hmong womens group, and bought some of their goods. For what I'll ever use the items, I'll never know, but hopefully it put a few bowls of rice on the table and a chicken to boot. Buying the items gave them a little plum, and a lot of us did so. Are we gonna wipe out all investments in areas where starvation may be rampant tomorrow? God forbid!

Let the trade world remain free. Those who invest overseas often are already hiring their fair share of people over here, into the tens of thousands of American jobs. Without some good will from other countries, we wouldn't be a very great country as we are now. We'd be pretty outside the loop. That's just not my definition of what America is to its brother and sisters overseas.

To each, according to his gifts!

I'm just saying, this should not be on the table in politics. It's a spiritual issue and an issue of the heart, not of the state, unless it is at war with the country.

The issue isn't investing in foreign countries. Any American can buy CDRs. The issue is hiding ones money in off-shore tax havens. Why does Romney choose to do it?

 

[Papageorgio]

There's no shortage of outrage about ANYBODY who is avoiding paying taxes by hiding their money in offshore accounts.

The fact that somebody running for office is clearly one of those is simply even more outrageous.

How many big money Democratic Senators with offshore accounts are you outraged with? Were you outraged with Kerry?

The issue is why Romney uses off shore accounts, in countries with heavy duty bank secrecy laws.

Not according to the title of the thread, dicky doo, are you outraged with Democrats holding office that have offshore accounts?

The answer from you would be no, because you dicky doo are a hypocrite.

 

[Conservative]

Why is it always a deflection if the one of those in the discussion is running for Presdient? If your intention is to hold a candidate to a particular standard, should you not also hold members of your own party to the same standard?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Tool.

The reason that is so 100% true is the equality clause in all matters of being an American.

I was taught at my grandmother's knee what equality means. It means that the poorest citizens who earn a living as well as wealthy individuals as well as politicians get one and only one vote; that everyone is equal under the law. She also believed that those who are given much, much is expected. And of course, the "Whatever you do, do as much good as you can every way you can to all you can as long as you can..."

Is investing in another country illegal? If it is, why are we sending tax dollars to other countries? So only big shots can be givers and takers? That doesn't sound very American to me. Seems all should follow that allowance if they freely so choose to do so. I believe such is called "the pursuit of happiness." I was involved in a womens' church circle that was supporting a womens' sewing factory in India, when money was hard to come by in that country. We sent money, sewing machines, thread, anything we could, to ensure they would have the necessary startup materials to manufacture goods for sale so they could buy food for their starving families. I'm not sorry I supported that. It helped people who had no other way of earning money for digging a community water well, a food ration, school necessities, books for their school library, etc. (before the age of computers). Without some foreign investments made by Americans, even today, entire map sections would have people starving there if it weren't for some conscientious American putting his or her money in a group of people as willing to fight for their very survival as those seamstresses we helped were. We did likewise for a Hmong womens group, and bought some of their goods. For what I'll ever use the items, I'll never know, but hopefully it put a few bowls of rice on the table and a chicken to boot. Buying the items gave them a little plum, and a lot of us did so. Are we gonna wipe out all investments in areas where starvation may be rampant tomorrow? God forbid!

Let the trade world remain free. Those who invest overseas often are already hiring their fair share of people over here, into the tens of thousands of American jobs. Without some good will from other countries, we wouldn't be a very great country as we are now. We'd be pretty outside the loop. That's just not my definition of what America is to its brother and sisters overseas.

To each, according to his gifts!

I'm just saying, this should not be on the table in politics. It's a spiritual issue and an issue of the heart, not of the state, unless it is at war with the country.

The issue isn't investing in foreign countries. Any American can buy CDRs. The issue is hiding ones money in off-shore tax havens. Why does Romney choose to do it?

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over (asking that question) and expecting a different answer.

 

[Conservative]

Wow. You seem mad.

I'm a Kerry constituent and I have never voted for him in any election. I think he's an insufferable douche and it doesn't shock me in the least that he tucks his money away offshore. At this point it's just another reason not to like him.

As much as you don't want to hear it the reason why there is no "outrage" over your list or why nobody is talking about them is because nobody on the list is on the ballot for President. People don't care about some random Senator Bumblefuck from Washington.

further reinforcing my point. Libtards are being hypocritical on this. being a senator or congressman entails actions that affect the nation as a whole, just like being President does. Holding one set of offices to a lower standard than another is hypocritical.

I have little doubt that if Obama were found to have offshore accounts, it would suddenly not be a problem for the libtards.

Believe that if it makes you feel better but it's because this is a Presidential race. Your real problem is that the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's tax issues are effective and you are desperate for a way to discredit them. Unfortunately for you, Mitt Romney, an alleged wealthy job creator, is running on a platform that the wealthy and job creators are overtaxed but he refuses to disclose his tax records....Something that just so happens to be a tradition started by his own father decades ago. Romney's taxes and finances are an issue that isn't going away. Do try to deal with it a little better.

Believe that if it makes you feel better. However, the real issue is the hypocritical nature of the libtard populace here. Deny it all you like, but THAT, is the issue.
I have zero doubt that if Obama were shown to have offshore account, you and the rest of the libtard sheeple would suddenly not really have a problem with it.

 

[Conservative]

Wow. You seem mad.

I'm a Kerry constituent and I have never voted for him in any election. I think he's an insufferable douche and it doesn't shock me in the least that he tucks his money away offshore. At this point it's just another reason not to like him.

As much as you don't want to hear it the reason why there is no "outrage" over your list or why nobody is talking about them is because nobody on the list is on the ballot for President. People don't care about some random Senator Bumblefuck from Washington.

further reinforcing my point. Libtards are being hypocritical on this. being a senator or congressman entails actions that affect the nation as a whole, just like being President does. Holding one set of offices to a lower standard than another is hypocritical.

I have little doubt that if Obama were found to have offshore accounts, it would suddenly not be a problem for the libtards.

Since there's no account of Obama having off-shore accounts in countries that have bank secrecy, and are used by organized crime to hide money, you can speculate all you want, sissy boy. Not one of you knuckle draggers have been able to present a single cohesive argument, that justifies why Romney wants to hide his money.

So, Romney is hiding his money, while the Democrats with offshore accounts are not?

 

[Si modo]

Why is it always a deflection if the one of those in the discussion is running for Presdient? If your intention is to hold a candidate to a particular standard, should you not also hold members of your own party to the same standard?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Tool.

The reason that is so 100% true is the equality clause in all matters of being an American.

I was taught at my grandmother's knee what equality means. It means that the poorest citizens who earn a living as well as wealthy individuals as well as politicians get one and only one vote; that everyone is equal under the law. She also believed that those who are given much, much is expected. And of course, the "Whatever you do, do as much good as you can every way you can to all you can as long as you can..."

Is investing in another country illegal? If it is, why are we sending tax dollars to other countries? So only big shots can be givers and takers? That doesn't sound very American to me. Seems all should follow that allowance if they freely so choose to do so. I believe such is called "the pursuit of happiness." I was involved in a womens' church circle that was supporting a womens' sewing factory in India, when money was hard to come by in that country. We sent money, sewing machines, thread, anything we could, to ensure they would have the necessary startup materials to manufacture goods for sale so they could buy food for their starving families. I'm not sorry I supported that. It helped people who had no other way of earning money for digging a community water well, a food ration, school necessities, books for their school library, etc. (before the age of computers). Without some foreign investments made by Americans, even today, entire map sections would have people starving there if it weren't for some conscientious American putting his or her money in a group of people as willing to fight for their very survival as those seamstresses we helped were. We did likewise for a Hmong womens group, and bought some of their goods. For what I'll ever use the items, I'll never know, but hopefully it put a few bowls of rice on the table and a chicken to boot. Buying the items gave them a little plum, and a lot of us did so. Are we gonna wipe out all investments in areas where starvation may be rampant tomorrow? God forbid!

Let the trade world remain free. Those who invest overseas often are already hiring their fair share of people over here, into the tens of thousands of American jobs. Without some good will from other countries, we wouldn't be a very great country as we are now. We'd be pretty outside the loop. That's just not my definition of what America is to its brother and sisters overseas.

To each, according to his gifts!

I'm just saying, this should not be on the table in politics. It's a spiritual issue and an issue of the heart, not of the state, unless it is at war with the country.

The issue isn't investing in foreign countries. Any American can buy CDRs. The issue is hiding ones money in off-shore tax havens. Why does Romney choose to do it?

Obama is great at investing MY money in foreign jobs.

 

[Conservative]

There's no shortage of outrage about ANYBODY who is avoiding paying taxes by hiding their money in offshore accounts.

The fact that somebody running for office is clearly one of those is simply even more outrageous.

How many big money Democratic Senators with offshore accounts are you outraged with? Were you outraged with Kerry?

The issue is why Romney uses off shore accounts, in countries with heavy duty bank secrecy laws.

I've already posted the banking laws for some of the countries that he and the Dems use for offshore accounts. They are highly regulated and recognized internationally for their efforts to thwart corruption and tax evasion. So, where's the 'heavy duty bank secrecy' you're whining continually about?

It doesn't exist.

 

[kaz]

Mittens is the only one running for President . They are all scumbags they inside

Trade , you. & me do it we go to jail . Nice deflection though .

So, offshoe bank accounts are only BAD, if you're running for President. If you're just a congressman or senator, no worries... right?

If you're running for President, you can't have an offshore bank about, but you can:

- Deduct $50 per pair of used underwear you donate to charity

- Have a fundraising leader..s... connected to organized crime

- Collect money from Communist China and return the favor by approving sensitive technology deals

- Sexually harass a woman asking for a job for her husband

- Grow up with a history of Marxists and advocate policies of Marxism without being remotely a Marxist

- Commit perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power to cover up getting blown by an intern in the Oval Office

- Have a love child with another woman while your wife is dying of cancer

- Be a compulsive liar who made up things like that they'd run the Boston Marathon and thrown military ribbons they still had over the white house fence

- Write an autobiography where you make people up and claim you were born in Africa

- And ... commit murder by leaving a woman to die in your car and going home because you don't want to take a sobriety test.

But offshore accounts? Not if you're running for President. Oh, and not if you're a Republican...

 

[Caroljo]

Explain why? It's legal to do and many rich people do it! Why should someone discontinue it when there's nothing illegal about it? Would you demand the same thing from a democrat running for president?

 

[Ravi]

The answer may well be that 2009 was the year that the Treasury Department decided to offer an amnesty from prosecution for tax fraud to any of the tens of thousands of millionaires who were known or suspected to have illegally hidden income abroad in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss banks -- a felony, but one that people thought they'd never be caught at.

That year alone, some nearly 30,000 people, many of them no doubt prominent in society, politics and business, and customers of the finest accounting firms, reportedly voluntarily came forward to the IRS to admit that they had hidden some of the estimated $100 billion in income that crooked rich Americans have for years been secreting away in banks overseas. Under the terms of the program, they were able to just report their fraud, pay the taxes, penalties and interest on the money and then walk away scott free, with no charges and with their returns kept confidential by the agency.

Is Mitt Romney Trying to Avoid Having to Admit to Massive Tax Fraud? | NationofChange

 

[kaz]

Explain why? It's legal to do and many rich people do it! Why should someone discontinue it when there's nothing illegal about it? Would you demand the same thing from a democrat running for president?

Tax evasion is patriotic. Paying them isn't. And Democrats don't.

Democrats say they are allowed to be harder on Republicans about morality because morality is a Republican issue.

Yet Democrats, the high tax party, give their own politicians a pass when they directly cheat on their taxes. Democrat is actually a Latin word which means "double standard."

 

[Ravi]

Explain why? It's legal to do and many rich people do it! Why should someone discontinue it when there's nothing illegal about it? Would you demand the same thing from a democrat running for president?

Tax evasion is patriotic. Paying them isn't. And Democrats don't.

Democrats say they are allowed to be harder on Republicans about morality because morality is a Republican issue.

Yet Democrats, the high tax party, give their own politicians a pass when they directly cheat on their taxes. Democrat is actually a Latin word which means "double standard."

We've seen Obama's 2009 return. He obviously was not one of the millionaires that the IRS forgave a felony.

We don't know that about Mitten.

 

[Caroljo]

And i doubt they'd be worried about it if it were turned around and a democrat was running and had one. It would be a completely different story coming out of their mouths!

 

[kaz]

Explain why? It's legal to do and many rich people do it! Why should someone discontinue it when there's nothing illegal about it? Would you demand the same thing from a democrat running for president?

Tax evasion is patriotic. Paying them isn't. And Democrats don't.

Democrats say they are allowed to be harder on Republicans about morality because morality is a Republican issue.

Yet Democrats, the high tax party, give their own politicians a pass when they directly cheat on their taxes. Democrat is actually a Latin word which means "double standard."

We've seen Obama's 2009 return. He obviously was not one of the millionaires that the IRS forgave a felony.

We don't know that about Mitten.

I was referring to Clinton, Daschle, Rangle, ...

You don't care until it's politically expedient. And Romney isn't even accused of cheating on his taxes, you just want them for cheap political points.

While you defend Obama for not releasing fast and furious documents or his grades because you say Republicans only want them for cheap political points.

Again, double standard.

 

[kaz]

And i doubt they'd be worried about it if it were turned around and a democrat was running and had one. It would be a completely different story coming out of their mouths!

For Republicans no explanation is good enough. For Democrats, no explanation is required.

 

[Ravi]

Tax evasion is patriotic. Paying them isn't. And Democrats don't.

Democrats say they are allowed to be harder on Republicans about morality because morality is a Republican issue.

Yet Democrats, the high tax party, give their own politicians a pass when they directly cheat on their taxes. Democrat is actually a Latin word which means "double standard."

We've seen Obama's 2009 return. He obviously was not one of the millionaires that the IRS forgave a felony.

We don't know that about Mitten.

I was referring to Clinton, Daschle, Rangle, ...

You don't care until it's politically expedient. And Romney isn't even accused of cheating on his taxes, you just want them for cheap political points.

While you defend Obama for not releasing fast and furious documents or his grades because you say Republicans only want them for cheap political points.

Again, double standard.

All of your deflection is meaningless. Did Romney benefit from the 2009 amnesty or not?

 

[kaz]

We've seen Obama's 2009 return. He obviously was not one of the millionaires that the IRS forgave a felony.

We don't know that about Mitten.

I was referring to Clinton, Daschle, Rangle, ...

You don't care until it's politically expedient. And Romney isn't even accused of cheating on his taxes, you just want them for cheap political points.

While you defend Obama for not releasing fast and furious documents or his grades because you say Republicans only want them for cheap political points.

Again, double standard.

All of your deflection is meaningless. Did Romney benefit from the 2009 amnesty or not?

Pointing out your double standards isn't deflection, it clearly shows that the standards you're trying to hold "Mitten" to aren't really your standard. Which means they are irrelevant, simply political posturing. That couldn't be more directly addressing your points.

And I don't give a crap if Romney got 2009 amnesty. Neither do you. I oppose Obama because I oppose socialism, you oppose Romney because you support socialism. That's the issue, stick to relevant discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

The issue isn't investing in foreign countries. Any American can buy CDRs. The issue is hiding ones money in off-shore tax havens. Why does Romney choose to do it?

How is he hiding it if it's listed on his income taxes?

You obviously don't even understand the facts of the issue. Face it, Obama can't run on his record, so his drones need something to attack Romney with. The way you lie about the facts that are already known shows what will be done with any additional tax returns Romney would release.

 

[Ravi]

I was referring to Clinton, Daschle, Rangle, ...

You don't care until it's politically expedient. And Romney isn't even accused of cheating on his taxes, you just want them for cheap political points.

While you defend Obama for not releasing fast and furious documents or his grades because you say Republicans only want them for cheap political points.

Again, double standard.

All of your deflection is meaningless. Did Romney benefit from the 2009 amnesty or not?

Pointing out your double standards isn't deflection, it clearly shows that the standards you're trying to hold "Mitten" to aren't really your standard. Which means they are irrelevant, simply political posturing. That couldn't be more directly addressing your points.

And I don't give a crap if Romney got 2009 amnesty. Neither do you. I oppose Obama because I oppose socialism, you oppose Romney because you support socialism. That's the issue, stick to relevant discussion.

I don't support socialism. I do support social programs to a point.

You don't care if Romney is a forgiven felon, that's fine. I do.

 

[bripat9643]

The answer may be? We can speculate all day about crimes Obama may have committed. Obama may have forged his birth certificate. Obama may have gone to Pakistan on a foreign passport. Obama may have attended Harvard as a foreign student.

Speculating about crimes politicians may have committed is fun, isn't it?

The answer may well be that 2009 was the year that the Treasury Department decided to offer an amnesty from prosecution for tax fraud to any of the tens of thousands of millionaires who were known or suspected to have illegally hidden income abroad in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss banks -- a felony, but one that people thought they'd never be caught at.

That year alone, some nearly 30,000 people, many of them no doubt prominent in society, politics and business, and customers of the finest accounting firms, reportedly voluntarily came forward to the IRS to admit that they had hidden some of the estimated $100 billion in income that crooked rich Americans have for years been secreting away in banks overseas. Under the terms of the program, they were able to just report their fraud, pay the taxes, penalties and interest on the money and then walk away scott free, with no charges and with their returns kept confidential by the agency.