Slashdot Mirror


Secret Service Investigating Romney Tax Hack Claim

A federal investigation has been launched after hackers claimed to have stolen Mitt Romney’s tax returns. The hackers have given Romney until September 28th to pay $1 million in bitcoins or they say they will release the returns. From the article: "The claim was made in a post on the Pastebin site on Sunday that alleged that Romney's federal tax returns were taken from the offices of PriceWaterhouse Coopers in Frankin, Tenn., on August 25 by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document. The message author threatened to release the files publicly on September 28 and said copies of the files had been given to Democratic and Republican leaders in that county. Democrats have made Romney's refusal to release his tax returns a key point in their criticism that he is not in touch with working class voters."

836 comments

  1. Don't worry, Romney... by Vintermann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there's one thing you can all agree on, it's that leakers must be punished harshly!

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    1. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "you can all agree on"?

      "you all" = "top level plutocrats that don't give a shit about anything but themselves and their buddies" ?

    2. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      sarcasm detector? THAT'S a useful invention..

    3. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

    4. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Right now, suspected terrorists don't get any privacy. That's why we have people getting molested at airports.

    5. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

      duh duh duh!

      That's all it's worth, really?

      I would love to see them. I'll bet he hasn't paid taxes in years. They offshore their profits and domesticate their losses.

      The government ends up paying them a refund even though it's stealing.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    6. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well that guy is an idiot.
      1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.

      2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.

      3. How politically damaging is the truth anyways? It seems like the only people who really care will not vote for Romney anyways. He already admits that he pays less percentage in tax then most Americans. After months of digging you may find that he missed the rule here and there. But then the other side will find that he could have benefited from other areas where it balanced out.

      There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.

      I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am sick of this extremism partisan crap. Where we actually celebrate politically motivated criminals who brake the law that causes something to favor our political stance.
      These hackers are not hero's, they are petty criminals who can't stand a world where people have opposing views to them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by machine321 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "you all" = "top level plutocrats

      No, we can't use Pluto any more, it's not a planet. Uranuscrats?

    8. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information - the lists are made public, and searchable. Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

    9. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by craigminah · · Score: 0

      So Harry Reid was wrong about Mitt Romney not paying taxes? I'm so surprised...

    10. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Is that the mantra?

      Dunno, it seems to flip-flop between "Information should be free, leak everything!" to "Noooo don't give away our personal information!" Just depends on which day of the week it is, and which of the usual Trolls is on their period.

    11. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For me at least, it isn't a case of 'should we go after them', but how much more attention gets paid to a case by law enforcement if the target if famous or politically connected. The Palin one was is a classic example... a type of hack that is not unusual and gets reported to the police fairly frequently, but very little is done about it. Yet all the stops came out to track down the person when Palin's emails were stolen.

      I am all for people like this being tracked down and arrested for their crimes, I just wish it did not matter so much who your victim is.

    12. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by craigminah · · Score: 2, Troll

      Well said but I think if politicians need to release tax records then they all should. Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.

    13. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lickers too! They should be spanked.

    14. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ahm.. part of the point of bitcoins is they are hard (in theory at least) to track. There are no 'bit coin servers' the FBI can go to, just a distributed network of anonymous nodes. In theory asking for a ransom to be paid like this makes a lot of sense.. it doesn't have the traceability of government backed currency (or the banking system it travels through) nor does it have the physical delivery problem of something like gold. In practice, if they wanted to expend significant resources (the kind that only get expended if you piss off someone really powerful), they could probably compromise or surround enough nodes to maybe track the coins being spent and try to watch where they transition back into goods.... maybe.

    15. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they're honest extreme partisan criminals... they openly admit they're doing it for money they foolishly think is untraceable.

    16. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by oreaq · · Score: 2

      2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.

      Offtopic, but that's not how bitcoins work. The truth about bitcoins is that there are no bitcoins, just the global transaction log, which is replicated between all bitcoin clients. No warrant is required to read the log, just use http://blockexplorer.com/. If Romney pays the log will contain an entry stating that the hash number the blackmailer provided owns bitcoins worth 1 milllion dollars.

    17. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well said but I think if politicians need to release tax records then they all should. Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.

      "...when it was originally earned...", by someone else, who also paid the taxes on those earnings. Nice try.

    18. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by samkass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's a lot of murky stuff in Romney's past regarding his business dealings, 1999 "retirement" from Bain (even though he has shares of Bain companies that didn't exist until 5 years later), tax shelters/avoidance schemes, etc.

      It's not about Romney not "being in touch." It's about him not wanting to be sued, or seen as a crook.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    19. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, we can't use Pluto any more, it's not a planet. Uranuscrats?

      I'd suggest "Anuscrats" is more fitting

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    20. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by gutnor · · Score: 1

      As a major presidential candidate, he should have less right to privacy than Joe User. That is not a privacy issue, that is a transparency issue, something that is incredibly important for a healthy democracy.

      For the same reason, he also deserve extra resource allocated to the protection against misuse of the information he has had to disclose.

    21. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wait, you don't think a crime done for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election for the POTUS is more serious than one that is done just to annoy someone or for financial gain? By that logic the entire Watergate scandal should never have been prosecuted - after all, it was just a simple office burglary.

    22. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BULLSHIT!

    23. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The debate if politicians should or shouldn't release tax records is an other debate. Right now they don't have to go that far, so by hacking and getting them and releasing them to the public is wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    24. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by JDG1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.

      By that logic, my plumber should only have to pay 15% on his taxes, since that money was already taxed once when me and all of his other customers earned it. But of course things don't work that way for ordinary people, only for the 1%.

    25. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, the FBI runs like mad to grab the server the bitcoins dropped into and finds it in a data center in outer Mongolia. The colo says it belongs to A. Nony Mooose, paid in cash. The coins are, of course long gone, the server is written off.

      The situation is a bit different since Romny is running for public office and has made sopecific claims WRT personal taxes and his party seems to be all about the old 'if you have done nothing wrong' crap. That is adequate reason to dunn him about them, but actually stealing the documents is a bit over the line.

    26. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bullshit. As of this moment (and certainly when the tax returns were made) he is an American citizen, and nothing more, just like you.

    27. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How in the world did you go from 'these crimes should be prosecuted even if the victim is a nobody' to 'watergate should never have been prosecuted'?

      I am just tired of the 'people with power deserve more justice then regular people'. Crow, a crime like this probably has less personal impact then one on a regular person... you think something like this would actually impact Romney in any significant way? Hacks like this are about as politically dangerous as fumbling a line during an interview. On the other hand when some average person has their personal information stolen it can be life destroying. So in a very real way this is a less serious crime since it is unlikely to have much impact on anyone or anything.

    28. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but he's running for President. We require cabinet nominees to submit a shed load of documentation, so why should a candidate for President be held to a lower standard?

      While we're at it, why hasn't he provided his college transcripts? If the bigoted hicks can demand the President show his, I think Romney should have to as well.

    29. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he is not. I am not running for a public office.

    30. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, THESE guys think voters care about Romney's tax returns -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSAGR0arBUo (warning: probably NSFW)

    31. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure they just pay the capital gains tax on the return, not the pricipal. I would like to see a distinction between people that invest for income purposes (where the length of investment is short, maybe less than a year or two) and long term investors. Short term investors should pay income tax on returns, while long-term investors would pay the lower capital gains tax.

    32. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.

      If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?

    33. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well bitcoins are like wire transfers...its all just meaningless account numbers, but.... the movement has to be consistent. So if I give you X bitcoins, I can see the account they go to when you spend them.... but its just another meaningless account number.

      Where things get interesting is, that they mix.... so, if I see a transfer to another account, I can then trace any other transfers to or from that account, or other ones it is associated with.

      If alice the crook uses her coins to buy a service from bob, then bob mixes her coins with others of his when he spends them, maybe from some tips he recieved from posting a tip bitcoin account on some web forum.... then he becomes easy to link.... and question. its "old fashioned police work" from there.

      Of course, if they are careful, and only use those coins for relatively anonymous transactions which they can turn into cash or unassociated bitcoins.... that trail could go cold fast.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    34. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      So are you opposed to demands for financial disclosure when there may be a conflict of interest? Or are you just opposed to demands that politicians who guide fiscal policy reveal their own fiscal maneuverings? Or is it the criminality of this that's problematic?

    35. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      "you all" = "top level plutocrats

      No, we can't use Pluto any more, it's not a planet. Uranuscrats?

      Neptocrats sounds appropriate...

    36. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, this hash number (bitcoin address) isn't linked to anything in the real world. The only time it becomes traceable is when you try converting back in to government currency, because that money has to go into a real person's bank account with real personal information. In between the Romney->Blackmailer transaction, the blackmailer can do a few things to make it harder (but not necessarily impossible) to trace, such as splitting the bitcoins into thousands of other bitcoin addresses or funneling it through 'legitimate' means such as through trading houses to other fake accounts or through an online casino and maybe they 'lose' all the money through poker to another bitcoin address. Wash, Rinse, Repeat and you give your tracker a much tougher trail to deal with.

    37. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      The fact that they are asking money means that their motivation is not really political.

    38. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      jellomizer wrote:
      >There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes.

      His father argued that, ``One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul.'' ultimately releasing 12 years' worth in _Look_ 12 December 1967.[1]

      William

      1 - http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-wont-talk-about-taxes-until-after-hes-the-official-nominee-2012-8

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    39. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing about Bitcoins is you can "transact" them into something completely unattached to the original. So, $1M worth of crypto codes gets sent to the blackmailer, they immediately turn it into $1M worth of equally valid, but completely different crypto codes (probably using servers scattered around the world) and poof, the trail is dead. That's the good, bad, and ugly of Bitcoin in a nutshell.

    40. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      I know hashes are hard to reverse, but if someone with a lot of computer cycles available were able to reverse this one, could that be used to identify the actual person?

    41. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well bitcoins are like wire transfers...its all just meaningless account numbers, but.... the movement has to be consistent. So if I give you X bitcoins, I can see the account they go to when you spend them.... but its just another meaningless account number.

      Where things get interesting is, that they mix.... so, if I see a transfer to another account, I can then trace any other transfers to or from that account, or other ones it is associated with.

      If alice the crook uses her coins to buy a service from bob, then bob mixes her coins with others of his when he spends them, maybe from some tips he recieved from posting a tip bitcoin account on some web forum.... then he becomes easy to link.... and question. its "old fashioned police work" from there.

      Of course, if they are careful, and only use those coins for relatively anonymous transactions which they can turn into cash or unassociated bitcoins.... that trail could go cold fast.

      And colder-faster if they simply exchange the wallet.dat file instead... there's no way to follow the moement of the files themselves instead of acount numbers held on them.

    42. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Informative

      How is he being taxed twice?

      You pay tax on your income, you invest your income (principal) and pay tax on the investment's earnings. You don't pay tax again on the investment principal.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    43. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't think anybody was dumb enough to think that we have the resources to "track down and arrest" someone for every crime that is reported. So I assumed (incorrectly) that your point was every instance of a crime should be treated the same as all other incidents of that crime. Since we can't possibly prosecute them all, we should either prosecute none, or just randomly pick some to prosecute. It is unlikely that Watergate would have been prosecuted to the extent it was in those circumstances.

      Like it or not, prosecution of crime (like everything else we do) is going to have priorities assigned. We do not have infinite resources. And like it or not, any crime which is done for the purposes of influencing an election is going to get a high priority, whether you think the crime would actually influence the election or not.

         

    44. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comprehension sucks. By your logic, which is to take some logic and completely ignore it, unicorns shit gold bricks.

    45. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it incorrect?

      It misses the larger complaint. If you are compensated directly in stock, rather than in cash, and you hold that stock for a minimum period of (IIRC) one year before selling it, it is only taxed at the capital gains rate, not the higher rate that normal compensation is taxed at. There's no "double-taxing" because it doesn't get taxed the first time.

      This is why, even in the tax returns that Romney decided were sufficiently non-embarassing to release, he's paying a lower percentage than I am.

    46. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying would be OK again if the TSA would just adopt the airlines' 1960s stewardess hiring practices.

    47. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by achbed · · Score: 0

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      WRONG. SSN + Date of Birth is the unique combination. It's amazing to me how much this is forgotten/ignored.

    48. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income?

      Because the subject of the information is a free citizen, not the government, and the only relevant information is the dollar amount of the taxes, for which a complete tax return is not needed.

      What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

      Because in the USA, the federal government doesn't have the right to make it public.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    49. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      As in Orwell's 1984. Everybody is private, but some are more private than others.

    50. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no law 'requiring cabinet nominees to submit a shed load of documentation'. There certainly is no law that says you lose your right to privacy by virtue of being a cabinet nominee. Now, you may not get confirmed by the senate (ie voted in) if you don't voluntarily give up some of your privacy, but that is far, far different than saying you lose your right of privacy.

      Now, if the American people decide not to vote for Romney because he did not disclose his tax returns, that is up to them. But saying that he forfeits his right to privacy (and laws protecting such privacy) simply because he is running for office is ludicrous.

    51. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by operagost · · Score: 0

      He already released the last two years, idiot. Obviously, he's paid, despite Harry Reid's slander.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by oreaq · · Score: 1

      No, hashes are made up on the spot. It's not the result of hashing some actual data but just a simple UUID.

    53. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      That's worse than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty sneaky. So, in my example, even the original $1M would have been taxed at about $150K, so long as it was paid in the form of stocks that were not sold for at least one year? Would the tax folks have a problem if you were to get a bank loan on good terms by using those stocks as collateral, then sell them a year later to pay off the loan? Even if the stocks went down by 10% you would probably come out ahead.

      Thanks for the info. Very interesting.

    54. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by msauve · · Score: 2

      "WRONG. SSN + Date of Birth is the unique combination. "

      So, you're claiming that there are duplicate SSNs, but held by people with different birth dates? The Social Security Administrations says they're unique.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    55. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a huge difference between demands for financial disclosure and forced disclosure.

      There is a simple solution to this. If the American people 'demand' that he disclose his finances, and he doesn't, don't vote for him! What could be simpler.

    56. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by operagost · · Score: 2

      Where's BadAnalogyGuy when you need him? This is nothing like what people like Romney (and Obama, and Soros, and Gore, and Pelosi) do. They earn income from their businesses or jobs, and INVEST that income: you know, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, venture capital. Your plumber could invest his earnings this way too-- although he obviously has an order of magnitude or two less to invest. The GP post was wrong, but your analogy is just as ridiculous.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that, given your hypothetical scenario, the plumber's income can be taxed separate from his customers as the income was earned by separate people -- we all must pay our equal share of government. The problem comes in with taxing the same person's income twice -- once is enough. It's especially egregious in the sense that we are discouraging investments that create jobs and grow our economy. It's yet another hidden tax that does nothing but discourage growth and hide the true size of our bloated government.

      And, last time I checked, all are free to make money on investments, not just 'the 1%.' You should really try educating yourself on the issue rather than continue to embarrassingly regurgitate the false liberal propaganda.

    58. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wont see the light of day but without open tax returns you have no way to see what is allowed for some but not for you in deductions.
      America is just greedy opportunist, nothing more. No place I have ever worked no people I have ever seen who when you were inside were not always above board or plane crooks. getting over in some form or fashion.

    59. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What kind of ridiculous non sequitur is this? Can we just agree that GPs post was ridiculous nonsense, that the rhetoric is uncalled for, and that the blackmail should be prosecuted?

    60. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bitcoins do not work that way.

    61. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      No. Bitcoin accounts are a created on your local computer; a normal desktop can create ~100k/sec. They consist of a public and a private part, like async crypto. You use the public part to transfer funds to the account, and the private part to transfer funds from it.

      --
      What?
    62. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      Reality intrudes. Regardless of how dumb of an idea it is to have SSNs be treated as secret, you would be silly to give yours out.

      Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income

      Because its personal income; when Romney files a tax return, he does so as a private citizen.

    63. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough that SSN were our student number in college, it was on my college ID, my dinner card, all my papers that meant anything. When I got out it was my employee number at General Motors. My SSN has been public info for as long as I can remember and have never had my identity stolen. I agree with the rest though.

    64. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      So are you opposed to demands for financial disclosure when there may be a conflict of interest

      Someone else's tax return is none of your business. Get over it.

    65. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. As of this moment (and certainly when the tax returns were made) he is an American citizen, and nothing more, just like you.

      Is he an American? Rumor is he was born in Mexico. Why hasn't he produced a REAL birth certificate?

      Rumors are he will be the first Mexican national to become president of the United States with the purpose of returning all lands taken from Mexico in our wars with them.

      Rumors are he does not produce his tax returns because he has been filing them in Mexico, not the US...

    66. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was also never intended to be used for your bank records either.

    67. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you opposed to demands for financial disclosure when there may be a conflict of interest?

      Not at all. Do you have any reason to suspect there was a conflict of interest? Or do you just want to force anyone running for office to dance to whatever tune you decide to hum today?

    68. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN? Or do government officials somehow trump combinatorics?

    69. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'its "old fashioned police work" from there.'

      Unfortunately "old fashioned police work" is no longer in fashion.

    70. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Kinthelt · · Score: 1, Funny

      Social security numbers are unique at any given time. However, they can be reused when a person dies.

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    71. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by coinreturn · · Score: 0

      What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

      He doesn't want everyone to see what a low overall tax RATE he is paying.

    72. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tarius8105 · · Score: 1

      He means in the terms of dividends. The corporation is taxed and what they pay in dividends, being already taxed, gets taxed again when it goes to the investor. The argument is flawed since as a person who pays income tax every paycheck, I'm being "taxed" twice by the same logic.

    73. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      Actually, it wasn't intended to be used for anything other than Social Secutiry purposes: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-ssn
      br>This sentence is quite interesting: "While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where a Social Security number might be required or requested, a Social Security number is required or requested by the following organizations"... I particularly like that it says "required or requested".
       
      Finally:

      Giving your Social Security number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your Social Security number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.

    74. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jythie · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Infinite no, but the amount of resources that go into prosecuting a tiny fraction of the crimes could easily be spread out among a much larger set. The triage seems to be less about 'what limited resources can result in the most prosecution' and more 'resources to people with influence, anything left over goes to everyone else'

    75. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      True, but it was also not intended to be a universal identification number. As I understand it, the original intent was that the SSN would be used only for the purposes of Social Security. Opponents warned that it would grow beyond that into what it has become today. So while it is not secret, it should be kept close to the vest, so to speak.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    76. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      last time I checked, all are free to make money on investments, not just 'the 1%.' You should really try educating yourself on the issue rather than continue to embarrassingly regurgitate the false liberal propaganda.

      Only the wealthy have enough money to bear the risk of investment. Or did you fail to notice all these retirement funds which have failed recently? Or are you just regurgitating the false libertarian propaganda?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    77. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. As of this moment (and certainly when the tax returns were made) he is an American citizen, and nothing more, just like you.

      Is he an American? Rumor is he was born in Mexico. Why hasn't he produced a REAL birth certificate?

      Rumors are he will be the first Mexican national to become president of the United States with the purpose of returning all lands taken from Mexico in our wars with them.

      Rumors are he does not produce his tax returns because he has been filing them in Mexico, not the US...

      No, his father was born in Mexico (and lived there his first 5 years of life). On a polygamist compound founded specifically to evade US laws against polygamy. That is all fact.

    78. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      since that money was already taxed once when me and all of his other customers earned it

      Nope, the plumber's earned income falls under a completely different set of rules. The reasoning behind lower taxes for long term capital gains is to encourage investment in activities that create jobs.

    79. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information - the lists are made public, and searchable. Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

      What's the rationale for keeping them secret? What's the rational for forcing him to make them public? Their HIS financial records. Do you suddenly believe in the mantra "if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide"?

      We live in a society where your private details should not be forced to be public information. We don't mandate everyone live in glass houses and staple their credit card statements to their backs. Tax returns have tons of confidential information which could be used by potential employers, investors, competitors, etc.

    80. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cryptizard · · Score: 0

      But somebody would have to be in idiot to buy these "hot" bitcoins because, as said previously, all transactions in the bitcoin network are public. They would then be bringing down law enforcement wrath on themselves because they are indistinguishable from the original hackers. And, again since transactions are public, everyone will know immediately which bitcoins were used in this ransom and hopefully will be smart enough not to accept them.

    81. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Funny, the second bullet point here says that sometimes more than one person can be assigned the same SSN.

    82. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Ok, so if it's not really a hash, but more of a public key, then it's still a possible (although very difficult) thing to reverse. But even if you were able to reverse it, all you would get is the ability to spend any money still in that account when you finished the factorization, not the identity of the person. Is that the point?

    83. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by msauve · · Score: 2

      Not to worry. The whole SS system is going to crash and burn long before then.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    84. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Glarimore · · Score: 1

      If the tax returns are fake, then they don't influence the election. If they are real, they only influence the election by giving voters more information on which to vote. I don't really see the problem here, or why is necessitates a different response than when the same thing happens to Joe Schmoe. My two cents.

      In my opinion, the dumbest thing that has happened in this thread thus far is someone comparing this (a third party claiming they hacked Romney's tax returns off of a laptop) to Watergate (The president and the republican party breaking and entering into the other Democratic party's HQ). They are a bit different.

    85. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Well said but I think if politicians need to release tax records then they all should. Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.

      "...when it was originally earned...", by someone else, who also paid the taxes on those earnings. Nice try.

      No, every dollar can only be taxed once. It's in the Constitution, don't you know!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    86. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not being taxed again on the principal. Ordinary citizens aren't taxed on whatever principal they hold in a bank account either. They're taxed on whatever they earn. There's no difference, except that most ordinary citizens don't have millions of dollars laying around in an account, they have to work for a wage, on which they pay a much higher tax rate. That's the whole darn point! Investors get off easy on the premise that they are theoretically going to invest more rather than spend their money, and that this is better for the economy overall. Whether that is actually the case is a matter of argument, but it doesn't change the fact that people earning a wage lose a substantially higher fraction of their earnings as tax than people living from an investment income. Is that fair? That's a matter of politics.

    87. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't agree this post is insightful. Interesting, maybe, but being wrong is not insightful. You said:

      1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.

      The reason the scammers probably don't have any real tax return information is that none seems to have been leaked. Proving you have information can be done in many ways, such as releasing the exact amount of a certain deduction, or the SHA-1 hash of a whole electronic document. Proving they have the real thing is so easy, we can assume it's a scam if they didn't. Now, having Romney lie and deny it's genuine would quickly end his chances of winning the election. Reporters would come out of the woodwork to verify random facts from the returns. I could probably verify a few from home using Google. They lie would be almost instantly exposed.

      2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.

      Here you're simply ignorant of how bit coins work. There are no "servers", it's P2P. The other end receiving the bitcoins would likely be a Tor node in Russia, where our FBI couldn't even trace the packets. The FBI could watch as the bitcoins get traded through many transactions, but they couldn't even identify what nation those trades occur in, and certainly not who owns the various bitcoin destinations. That's why bitcoins are valuable. They enable criminals to launder money.

      3. How politically damaging is the truth anyways? It seems like the only people who really care will not vote for Romney anyways. He already admits that he pays less percentage in tax then most Americans. After months of digging you may find that he missed the rule here and there. But then the other side will find that he could have benefited from other areas where it balanced out.

      This issue is severely damaging his credibility and may cost him the election. The one thing we know about Romney is he is quite willing to change his behavior and even stated beliefs in order to maximize his likelihood of being elected. Therefore, the information in his returns is more damaging than Mitt's estimated fallout from not revealing them.

      There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.

      Are you really comparing the need Americans have for trusting their future president to a guy who doesn't want to be groped at the airport? Romney's greatest argument for the presidency is his business background, yet he refuses to reveal what sort of business he's been doing. To continue with the airport analogy, before I'd let that guy trying to get on the plane take control of our country, I'd do a full body cavity search. I'd take blood samples and have them tested for drugs. I'd get a stool sample and check for parasites.

      I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    88. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Or that someone is trying to hide a political motivation by pretending to be a criminal. To further spin the conspiracy, the interested party will pay itself the $1M (to show on the transaction logs of the bitcoin system) and pretend the Romney campaign did it because they have something to hide. And then release the returns (if they actually have them) at an opportune moment claiming the Romney campaign violated some agreement or another. Of course, you could theorize the other way around, the Romney campaign knows someone will somewhere get their hand on the returns and publish them. With this story, any published return gets tainted as coming from a blackmailer/thief and shouldn't be taken seriously. Don't you love election season.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    89. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      If it helps Obama, I bet he pardons them in 2016.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    90. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by msauve · · Score: 1

      You don't know how to follow a link, do you?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    91. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it's an assumption that putting getting this info (if it indeed turns out to be authentic) was for the purposes of affecting the POTUS election, since there was no prior knowledge of the contents. Therefore the most we can assume about intention without more info:
      1. They were just after transparency, in line with the de facto policies of recent prior candidates
      2. They were fishing, hoping to find something and since they released the results, perhaps they did
      3. They have no clue, acted on the headlines and don't know what they have, released anyways
      4. Faked it.
      No scenario here excuses their actions, but only one bodes well for Romney, unless those documents are squeaky clean.

    92. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 5, Informative

      For all the people complaining about making private things public:

      1) At one time in the US, tax returns were public information. When the IRS was new, everyone's info was published to show that everyone paid their share. I'm not saying we need to force people back to this precedent, but just saying that there is a a precedent.

      2) The precedent of Presidential Candidates releasing tax returns for 10 years was started by... George Romney, Willard M. Romney's dad. His reasoning was that any one year could be a fluke, but 10 years would show a pattern. Again, not saying they should have broken in and taken his taxes, but the precedent was set.

      The people should be prosecuted. They've broken the law and should face consequences. But anyone rising up in anger against the unprecedented nature of this needs to look at precedents.

    93. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DragonTHC · · Score: 2

      He has released a 2010 return.
      There are portions of his 2011 return released but not the complete return.
      Who is the idiot now?

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    94. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Motive should not matter. Victims should not matter.

      Romney sold have just released his returns like everyone else.

    95. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Errors happen. That whole article is about how to get it corrected, so SSNs are unique, as they're supposed to be. An intelligent person would have picked up on that.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    96. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      You guys need to go learn more about investing, taxes, stocks, bonds, capital gains, and about a thousand other topics. What has been described in this subthread is not what is happening.

    97. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because in the USA, the federal government doesn't have the right to make it public.

      It did. Originally all tax returns were public. Not saying whether they should or shouldn't be public, just saying they had the right before, and they then chose not to.

    98. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Here you're simply ignorant of how bit coins work. There are no "servers", it's P2P. The other end receiving the bitcoins would likely be a Tor node in Russia, where our FBI couldn't even trace the packets. The FBI could watch as the bitcoins get traded through many transactions, but they couldn't even identify what nation those trades occur in, and certainly not who owns the various bitcoin destinations. That's why bitcoins are valuable. They enable criminals to launder money.

      Better than the person you were replying to but still not quite there. There is no "other end" of a Bitcoin transaction. Bitcoin is a public ledger. Coins are "sent" from one public key to another public key so don't reside on any particular server nor do they "move" from one computer to another. An attacker with sufficient resources to eavesdrop on every node in the network might be able to figure out where the person initiating the transaction is located from but with Tor nodes involved this is relatively difficult.

    99. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cryptizard · · Score: 2

      That is not true. In order for a seller to accept bitcoins there must be a path in the transaction chain that links the bitcoins from their creation to the person who is currently trying to give them to you. Otherwise, there would be no way to prevent creating bitcoins out of nothing or double spending. This means that the history of every bitcoin is public and available to anyone. The reason it is considered anonymous is that there is no link between your bitcoin address and any real, personally identifiable information.

      In this situation, it becomes a huge problem because Romney could just publish his bitcoin address (voluntarily linking himself to it) and then anyone would know they were being presented with illicit bitcoins if the hackers tried to spend them. A lot of people might refuse to take these as it would definitely draw law enforcement attention. The police's goal would then be to try to identify one of the people who receive the bitcoins in question and then trace back from there to the hackers.

    100. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romney's own father released 12 years of returns saying that a single year could be an anomaly.

      Mitt is hiding something

    101. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nobody's business what charities I donate to, how much money I make, what stocks I've bought and sold, etc.

    102. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      No you're not. Your paycheck is an expense and is deducted from your employer's gross revenue. Your employer only pays taxes on net profits, not their gross revenue.

      On the other hand dividends are paid from cash that a company has in the bank, all of which has been taxed prior to being paid out as dividends.

    103. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Because the only thing anyone wold accept as proof are his actual tax reruns. The whole thin wold make him appear desperate. His campaign has not been managed well. They should have released the information long ago. They knew it would come out eventually. Releasing it in June would have been much better.

    104. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Minwee · · Score: 2

      What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN?

      The Rapture.

    105. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Funny, the second bullet point here says that sometimes more than one person can be assigned the same SSN.

      I suspect that is what we humans call "an error".

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    106. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that guy does not understand that you ooh pay capital gains on gains..

    107. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wovel · · Score: 5, Informative

      And then they pay taxes on the "Gains" not the part they previously earned. Nothing is taxed twice. We need to keep pointing that out because the GP was a complete moron.

    108. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      But somebody would have to be in idiot to buy [...] bitcoins

      Good point.

    109. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm out sick for two weeks, then come back and look at Slashdot, and it's still filled with morons like you.

    110. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Since we can't possibly prosecute them all, we should either prosecute none, or just randomly pick some to prosecute.

      I agree. Selective enforcement of the law allows for much more abuse than random enforcement of the law.

      It is unlikely that Watergate would have been prosecuted to the extent it was in those circumstances.

      Watergate is a good example, but what of all the crimes we didn't hear about because the police or prosecutors refused to enforce the law against their cronies?

      We do not have infinite resources.

      Either allocate enough resources to enforce the law every time, or repeal the law. If you must selectively enforce the law, do it randomly so it cannot be gamed by corrupt leaders. Allowing prosecutors to play favorites is the worst possible outcome. Game theory has shown that sometimes the optimal strategy is random, we should learn from this.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    111. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      You CAN create bitcoins out of nothing. It's called mining. Thats part of the whole deal with Bitcoins. A bitcoin is nothing but a really hard to create crypto string (the factor of some unimaginably large number). Transaction control (to prevent double spending) takes place on anonymous nodes, so when you say "i am giving these coins to that person" the transaction is queued up and carried out by god-knows-who, and the resulting bitcoins are *nothing like the original*. At least, that's the theory behind it. The only way to "follow the money" is to have access to the records of each individual in the chain. If the perps create a few anonymous accounts, "launder" the money, and then transfer it to a final account for spending, it would be nigh impossible to figure out where the $1M in the final account came from (to say conclusively that it was from the original $1M paid in ransom, like in this case.)

      Flaws and government "influence", of course, may or may not exist to completely negate all of that.

    112. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you save enough money to buy one house and then the house appreciates in value alongside other houses. You then sell the house and have to pay capital gains tax. The net proceeds then is no longer enough to buy an equivalent house. This is why capital gains tax is a form of double taxation. If you buy any other asset and the country has inflation of 100%, the increase will be taxed as a capital gains. However, when you try and buy that same asset with the net proceeds, you can no longer buy as much of the original asset.

    113. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You highlight another reason investments shouldn't be taxed -- risk.

      Regardless, stocks and investment funds are indeed within financial reach of most anyone above the poverty line. For example, many in the middle class have 401Ks and IRAs. Why is it considered 'libertarian' to state the fact that anyone is free to make money on investments? That doesn't make any sense.

      Again, you 99%'ers need to apply as much zeal to your education on finances and economics as you do deriding those who've put in the work and achieved the success you desire. Envy and ignorance is not the path to success.

    114. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by nebosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I understand (if not entirely agree with) the logic behind capital gains taxation, It's not that simple for Romney. There are smoking guns in the current returns he's released, such as the disclosure of a >$100m IRA. Given that contributions are limited to something around $50k/year (at most, assuming a self-directed IRA), that's the accounting fraud/tax evasion equivalent of having a body with a bullet hole in it. You still have to find the murder weapon to prove the crime, but there's no question that something went horribly wrong. The only way for that kind of IRA inflation to happen is if you misrepresent the value of assets you transfer through the accounting firewall into your IRA, or manipulate the value post-transfer.

      There's also the question of whether he paid the proper gift tax on the transfer of $100m in assets to a trust for his sons (the existence of which is also revealed in his currently-released tax return). His own vague statements on his tax payments imply that he hasn't, because the tax resulting from that one action would have been >$30m. Gift tax is rarely audited aside from asset transfers shortly before death, so many people ignore it for both that reason and the reason that it has a statute of limitation of something like only 3 years.

      Given the above, let alone the vagaries of complex and legitimately grey (as in not even the regulators know for sure whether it's OK, so no one can say for sure that they're illegal) tax avoidance strategies routinely employed in the management of that kind of accumulated wealth, it's mind-boggling why Romney released any tax returns at all. That being said, this extortion attempt is really a stroke of luck for him, as it will make the issue toxic and untouchable whereas it would probably have otherwise dogged him clear to election day.

    115. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      You can also treat your salary as investment income, if you're in private equity

    116. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be a planet? I'd call them "goofycrats". They seem like Disney dogs anyway.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    117. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's why I asked. You are implying that what's above is wrong. Which specific parts of that example don't reflect reality, and why not?

    118. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      How do you know they're different? You may not know this, but the police did not actually catch 'the president and republican party' in the Democrats HQ. They caught five men, 'third parties' as it were. The fact that the president and republican party were involved was not known until after the arrests were made and the police dug deeper into who was behind it.

      All that is known so far in this case is that someone is attempting to blackmail Romney by threatening to release stolen tax returns. Neither you, nor anyone else (except the perpetrator(s)) know who that someone is, what their motive is, or any connection they may have to the president or DNC. Just like Watergate. And yet here you are, proclaiming it totally different.

    119. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Romney sold have just released his returns like everyone else.

      Well, I don't know about you, but I have not released my tax returns.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    120. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Of course, unlike Obama, neither Mitt Romney's father nor his grandfather were polygamists. Both were married to the same woman for their entire lives.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    121. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

      because his money was taxed when it was initially earned

      Not necessarily. Consider this set of examples from the New York Times

      To see the value of this strategy, think about investing with pretax versus after-tax dollars. Suppose Jill works at an investment bank, and her employer pays her a year-end bonus of $500,000. The bonus is taxed at a combined state and federal rate of 50 percent, leaving her with $250,000 to invest. She invests that $250,000 in her friend Jack’s private equity fund, and the investment doubles in value over five years. The $250,000 of new gain is taxed at the 15 percent long-term capital gains rate, leaving her with $212,500 and an overall after-tax amount of $462,500.

      Now consider Jack, who works at the private equity fund. To satisfy his co-investment obligation, Jack must invest in the fund. Under a fee waiver program, he waives $500,000 of his portion of the management fee and credits his capital account with that amount. After the $500,000 doubles over five years, and is then taxed on the full amount at capital gains rates on the back end, Jack walks away with $850,000 — roughly 84 percent better off than Jill, who invested with after-tax dollars.

    122. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      Woosh! Poe's law claims another victim.

      He's talking about our secret Muslim Mexican Paling-around-with-Polygamists Mormon-extremist Presidential Wannabe.
      Sources have confirmed to me that Mitt's real name may be "Miguel Santos Rodriguez".

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    123. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      He already released the last two years, idiot. Obviously, he's paid, despite Harry Reid's slander.

      I haven't seen any evidence to support your claim, but I certainly look forward to finding out! From my point of view, the people who supposedly have these documents should be prosecuted when they are inevitably caught; on the other hand, I also think they will have done a service to the people of the United States if they can leak the info first.

      Civil disobedience is about risking imprisonment. I wish I had the nerve to do more of it.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    124. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I expect about 50% of the voting population will take that approach, it's the other 50% that may not want to know in case there is actually something improper that's the problem.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    125. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Motive always matters.

      Whether or not he 'should' have released his returns is not the issue.

    126. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he is not being taxed twince, the money is (would be?) taxed twice. Read:

      http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/21/how-to-calculate-your-capital-gains-tax-or-not/

      "A company that chooses to retain, rather than distribute its after-tax corporate profits to shareholders in the form of a dividend will, all things being equal, grow the value of the company by the amount of retained earnings. This increase in value would be reflected in the share price meaning that a shareholder who faced full taxation on that gain, would essentially be paying tax a second time on the same corporate earnings. Taxing such gains at 50% attempts to mitigate this double taxation."

    127. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Not quite. As a major party candidate for the Presidency, he has the right to, has requested, and has received, his own Secret Service security detail.

      Ignoring anything else, that alone makes him something "more" than a typical American citizen (at least for now).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    128. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cryptizard · · Score: 1
      I obviously know that bitcoins are mined, I meant that without the transaction chain it would be possible to copy bitcoins and make an unlimited supply.

      A bitcoin is nothing but a really hard to create crypto string (the factor of some unimaginably large number).

      Since you are being pedantic, I will point out that the proof of work has nothing to do with factoring. That would make no sense because factoring is an asymmetric problem, someone would first have to generate the composite number and they would already know the factors. If you were just trying to factor a random number it would not be very hard as the difficulty is proportional to the size of the factors and most numbers have small factors (or are prime, which is also easy to verify).

      In actuality, the proof of work is to find a salt such that the hash of the previous transaction block and all pending transactions ends in a certain number of zeroes. This is also how bitcoins become harder to generate as time goes on, the number of zeroes required increases.

      when you say "i am giving these coins to that person" the transaction is queued up and carried out by god-knows-who, and the resulting bitcoins are *nothing like the original*.

      The transactions are "queued" up as you say, but the verifiers are actually the miners. When you successfully find one the above hashes, you simultaneously create a new block in the transaction chain (which validates all transactions included in that block) and receive a number of newly mined bitcoins. In order for this all to work out, you have to broadcast your block to everyone in the network. If you did not, then they would continue to make the chain without your block and you would be "orphaned" out of the accepted transaction chain, losing your bitcoins. Since all transaction blocks must be broadcast, the entire chain is public and anyone can trace the provenance of any bitcoin in the network, as I have said. Even if you create new bitcoin addresses and transfer your coins to them, you are not laundering them because they will still be traceable back to your original account.

      Read the white paper, it is all in there http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    129. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail:

      The last time my tax return got stolen, the Secret Service didn't swoop in to help me.

    130. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by chispito · · Score: 0

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Right now, suspected terrorists don't get any privacy. That's why we have people getting molested at airports.

      What the hell does that have to do with Romney's tax returns?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    131. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Would the tax folks have a problem if you were to get a bank loan on good terms by using those stocks as collateral, then sell them a year later to pay off the loan?

      Actually, I remember reading an article that said that's a common trick that sufficiently wealthy people pull off. Plus, if I remember correctly, the interest you pay on the loan against the stocks that you haven't paid tax on is tax-deductible.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    132. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 0

      If you're going to criticize us, at least use proper grammar. Asshole.

    133. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 2

      What, exactly, is the problem? That not everyone thinks like you?

      If people don't care to know about his finances, what good is disclosing them going to do? Perhaps you think that there should be some kind of test before you vote, and everyone that doesn't give the 'correct' (ie your) answers is barred from voting.

    134. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would love to see them. I'll bet he hasn't paid taxes in years. They offshore their profits and domesticate their losses.

      I have no proof for my ideas, but given the very personal nature of the tax return disclosure tradition (it was his dad that started it), the fact that he refuses to release more tax returns tells me there's a not-so-tinfoil-hat-crazy conspiracy to hide something.

      Personally, I think that he failed to disclose his offshore wealth, and he used the IRS' amnesty program to declare it all and pay the back taxes that he previously dodged. When he said a few months ago that he paid "at least 13%" of his income in taxes in each of the last ten years, I think that he is stating his "revisionist" tax rate after paying his back taxes, not what he originally filed and paid.

      Given how few years of taxes he released, I have to believe that there's an indication of this occurring very recently - or at least an indication of him settling this debt recently. I suspect that either the 2008 or 2009 returns would show amendments or other notes that would explain this in far more detail, and hence his inability to release even a few more years' returns to mollify critics.*

      * (Not that releasing two more years of tax returns would mollify most.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    135. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it works that way for everyone. I pay 15% on the money in my savings account, my profit from my Scottrade account....

    136. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by poity · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if Romney releases them now. It's too late to appease certain people. He didn't release them the moment his opponents called for them, which to some is a sign of guilt. We saw this 4 years ago. If Obama had released his birth certificate even just a week late, those among his opponents who had been clamoring to get at it would still have called it a forgery. If Romney were to ever release his personal tax documents, you can bet those clamoring to get at them will say it has been washed by a team of lawyers and accountants.

      Politics today consists of partisan loudmouths bouncing off of each other, pulling the country further apart with ever more heated rhetoric and accusations. Democrats and Republicans alike will say it's the other side that does it. Those principled few among us, who can support the privacy of both these men, are cast as shills whenever convenient.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    137. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Plutocrats?

      Goofycrats

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    138. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Wait, you don't think a crime done for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election for the POTUS is more serious than one that is done just to annoy someone or for financial gain?

      By releasing tax returns, in the name of transparency?

      No, of course I don't think that. Why would anyone who has a brain?

    139. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you invest in a business -- say GM. They show a profit and pay tax on that profit. Then distribute the profit to their shareholders through dividents or increased equity (share prices). Then you are taxed on that money again. So that same profit has been taxed at the corporate rate and then at a capital gains rate.

    140. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Loss of privacy is the price of authority, should he want it. This is what we must demand of all people who seek power. Pretty basic stuff.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    141. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, prosecution of crime (like everything else we do) is going to have priorities assigned.

      That sounds like a really, really thin and convenient excuse for those in power. You sound like a tool for saying it.

      When was the last time the police helped me with ANYTHING? Imagine calling in and reporting you were being extorted or your tax returns would be released....do you think the Secret Service let alone the local police department would even give you the time of day? Hell, they probably would sigh loudly if you insisted on filing a report. You're taking them away from giving out speeding tickets and setting up DUI checkpoints, comrade.

    142. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Well that guy is an idiot.

      Or maybe you're assuming a lot of things that don't need to be true.

      2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it.

      But what if nobody ever receives it? Do you think the government has a giant vault in northern Kentucky filled with gleaming stacks of Bitcoins that they pile into briefcases every time this happens?

      Suppose that somebody does try to pay this ransom. It's unlikely that they would have a million dollars worth of Bitcoin just sitting around, so they would have to convert $1,000,000 USD into about 100,000 BTC (Assuming an exchange rate of about $10 USD to the BTC. That's not quite right, but let's pretend it is so that the math works out). As there are only something like eight million BTC in existence, that's a pretty big buy order.

      If someone, let's call him Herbert J. Acker, were to happen to be selling a few thousand Bitcoins at the right time, he could walk away with tens of thousands of US dollars in an entirely legal way without ever having any connection to any kind of extortion scheme.

      It's no different from the old scam of placing two classified ads in different newspapers -- One offering to sell a rare but useless item at an inflated price and another pleading for a chance to buy the same item and offering twice as much for it. Once some sucker sees the obvious opportunity for arbitrage all you need to do is make the sale and then have the buyer mysteriously lose interest and disappear.

    143. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by meerling · · Score: 1

      they have rules for re-use of numbers, specifically after you die.

    144. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by ukemike · · Score: 1

      Right now, suspected terrorists don't get any privacy. That's why we have people getting molested at airports.

      Sure but that's just a side-effect of the fact that right now none of us get any privacy.
      http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_is_lying_us

      --
      -- QED
    145. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Because the subject of the information is a free citizen...

      Yes, a free citizen who wants authority over his fellow citizens.. Either he releases the information we want, or he simply should not even be considered for the job. What is the problem here?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    146. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, blackmail is always done 'in the name of transparency'. Seems to me you are the one with no brain.

    147. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by craigminah · · Score: 1

      How is that NY Times article relevant? Did Mitt Romney do that (do you have proof) or is that common practice? I don't give a crap what he does so long as he can fix our economy. From everything I've seen he's a stand-up guy who's main fault seems to be he's too square and stiff.

    148. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      There is a simple solution to this. If the American people 'demand' that he disclose his finances, and he doesn't, don't vote for him! What could be simpler.

      Sure! And we just get the other dictator instead.

      No, this was a blow struck for the PEOPLE. I just hope those Secret Service assholes are unable to catch these thieves. I hope Romney is stupid enough to not pay the random, and I hope they succeed in releasing these tax returns for us all to see. Yep, I'm rooting for the criminals, because Romney is a 10x bigger criminal who needs to be EXPOSED.

    149. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Or do you just want to force anyone running for office to dance to whatever tune you decide to hum today?

      Yes.

    150. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a matter of resource prioritization, its a matter of disproportionate reaction.

      Joe Average gets his e-mail hacked, all information fully released to the public with life destroying consequences = Nothing happens
      Sarah Palin gets her e-mail hacked with no consequential results to her life whatsoever = The FBI AND Secret Service launches a national investigation so overwhelming that the hacker is literally invested, caught and charged within WEEKS of the hack.

      If thats the kind of reaction we should expect from the legal system when it comes to the internet, the law is nothing more than a tool for the rich or politically connected to fuck over everyone else.

    151. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "the current system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future" did you not understand?

      Anyway, the purpose of SSNs was to be a unique identifier for paper records, analogous to the primary key of a database. Unfortunately, banks and other companies started using them as authenticators, so now they're useless as primary keys.

    152. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      I'm not a bitcoin user but I don't think Romney publishing his bitcoin address would really work.

      I could set up a bunch of extra bitcoin accounts and toss the money around. A seller might be wary of accepting bitcoins that *just* came from Romney, but what about bitcoins that came from Romney 5 transactions ago? 20 transactions?

      Not to mention--not all of those transactions are going to be through shell accounts either. Somebody selling black market items through the silk road probably doesn't care too much about accepting the tainted money since the FBI already hates them. Obviously you can't move all of the million dollars at once but a few small transactions to launder some of the coins plus a bunch of fake transactions to launder the rest and then you can start using them to pay for services where your shipping address gets involved or linking the coins back to a real bank account as you try to pull the money back out of the system.

      --
      Bottles.
    153. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WarmBoota · · Score: 2

      As a software developer, I've had job interviews that have required drug tests and criminal background checks. Are you telling me, we shouldn't have a full picture of who we're hiring to run this country?

      --
      90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
    154. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hash addresses in bitcoins are not a hash of some secret, they are literally just random globally unique values. Unlike cash, bitcoins don't have individual serial numbers, just the transaction log. If the money was to go through enough iterations, it should be pretty hard to trace.

    155. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he's a liar, a governor, and a candidate for POTUS.

      So... not exactly like you for probably two of those things.

    156. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by dintech · · Score: 2

      Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical

      I hear that guy makes birth certificates too.

    157. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      If the amount that they previously earned was reduced by some percentage because of taxes, they invested that much less, and therefore have that percentage less in gains.

    158. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire economic system is based on money passing around between persons and corporations, and most of those transactions are taxed at one rate or another. It is disingenious to get worked up about two particular transactions being both taxed.

    159. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      An amusing concept -- given that as designed it doesn't even require a trust fund to make payments, but currently has a trust fund engineered to carry it through the next 20 years of retiring baby boomers before matching income to outflow reduces payments by ... I think the current estimate is 12%. OMG, 12% cut in pay, SS is doomed!! DOOOOMED! The only thing that can kill social security, as it is presently enacted, is congress changing the way social security income is put into the system.

    160. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shiftless · · Score: 1

      He's not being taxed again on the principal. Ordinary citizens aren't taxed on whatever principal they hold in a bank account either. They're taxed on whatever they earn. There's no difference, except that most ordinary citizens don't have millions of dollars laying around in an account, they have to work for a wage, on which they pay a much higher tax rate. That's the whole darn point! Investors get off easy on the premise that they are theoretically going to invest more rather than spend their money, and that this is better for the economy overall. Whether that is actually the case is a matter of argument, but it doesn't change the fact that people earning a wage lose a substantially higher fraction of their earnings as tax than people living from an investment income. Is that fair? That's a matter of politics.

      No, it's simply a matter of not being a moron. These investments are available to everyone. Nobody "has" to work as a wage slave; they choose to do so.

    161. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The capital gains tax doesn't apply to principal - which is what Romney's earned income becomes when he invests it - but only interest. Yes, Romney was taxed at a normal income tax rate on that earned income before it became principal in his investments, but the money that was taxed as income isn't taxed as capital gains because - wait for it - it's not a gain! So, no, the capital gains tax isn't double taxation. But as Bill Clinton pointed out last night, Republicans aren't very good at arithmetic.

    162. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

      There are no rules regarding a president submitting his tax returns; it's simply been something that's started the past few years in the interest of showing ethical behavior. The tax return issue is entirely a campaign move by both parties; Obama and the Dems are pressuring Romney to release his returns simply because he's so wealthy they can use those tax returns in various campaign ads and slogans to prove that Romney is not an "average American". Romney will not release them for exactly that reason (he has released two years worth; Dems want 12 years which is what Obama has released). Romney is calculating that releasing them will cause more damage than the damage being caused by not releasing them, which is debatable since you have long time Senators (Harry Reid) making a claim "from an anonymous source" that Romney has committed tax fraud.

      I am not supporting one view or the other, simply explaining the facts and campaign strategy from both sides.

    163. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      currently has a trust fund engineered to carry it through the next 20 years of retiring baby boomers

      Not any more. Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".

    164. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 2
      This is on their radar, but it's a few generations off:

      Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

      A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

      source

    165. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      This is a scam. I read the letter here. If the scammer really has Romney's signature scanned, he'd post it somewhere, along with just enough interesting facts for reporters to verify that they really do have Romney's returns. It's fun talking about this scam, but it's just some young dork across the pond who thought this up and is having some fun. I checked his two bitcoin accounts. As of now, the account for releasing the returns is a bit over 1.1BTC, or about $11, and that's almost all from one transaction. The account for not releasing the returns has 0.33BTC, with 33 tiny transactions.

      I really do want to know what's in those returns, but any BTC sent to this hack is a waste of BTC.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    166. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      The account for not releasing the returns [blockchain.info] has 0.33BTC, with 33 tiny transactions.

      If you check the reddit thread for this story you'll see that those tiny transactions encode several steganographic messages.

    167. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Yes, receiving bitcoins reveals nothing about you whatsoever. But when you transfer bitcoin to another account, your IP is recorded. And all transfers are public.
      That means that if you use your freshly extorted bitcoin to buy stuff on Amazon (assuming they accepted it), you are traceable.
      You could shuffle your bitcoins around a bit on your various accounts and spend only a bit at a time, but that in itself devalues your money.

      --
      What?
    168. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and that's coming from somebody who thinks it's pretty shameful that Romney won't release his returns.

      Vigilantism does not spread democracy or freedom, whether you do it in person or on the internet. Just ask John Brown.

      --
      I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
    169. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Is that the mantra?

      Dunno, it seems to flip-flop between "Information should be free, leak everything!" to "Noooo don't give away our personal information!" Just depends on which day of the week it is, and which of the usual Trolls is on their period.

      I always preferred "Information longs to be liberated and expensive.". It seems apt in this case.

    170. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      If he wants to rule over the rest of us, his privacy should go out the window.. Or he should withdraw from the race. What is so hard to understand about this? Hell, the desire for the job should automatically disqualify anybody. We should draw lots to select our president, and congress, and when they're finished, they can retire back to their farm, or whatever. It couldn't be worse than what we have now, with all the carny hucksters we put into office.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    171. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the world did you go from 'these crimes should be prosecuted even if the victim is a nobody' to 'watergate should never have been prosecuted'?

      I am just tired of the 'people with power deserve more justice then regular people'. Crow, a crime like this probably has less personal impact then one on a regular person... you think something like this would actually impact Romney in any significant way? Hacks like this are about as politically dangerous as fumbling a line during an interview. On the other hand when some average person has their personal information stolen it can be life destroying. So in a very real way this is a less serious crime since it is unlikely to have much impact on anyone or anything.

      No, I agree with his point, and Watergate is a great example. There are incidents where companies commit industrial espionage where an individual breaks into an office in order to snoop around for information to give them an advantage. These things do happen, but it's not hugely reported because ultimately it affects only the companies involved. Watergate was pretty much the same thing, except it doesn't just affect the two parties; in the middle of a campaign season it affects the entire nation. That incident with Sarah Palin was big news because she was a big figure in politics at the time; a Vice Presidential Candidate. If her email got hacked now, I'm sure it'd be reported but they wouldn't pull out all the stops like they did before. However when the attention fo the entire nation si on her during a highly charged campaign season, then yeah, it's a big deal. So I don't think it was so much about pulling out all the stops because she was an important person, it was about pulling out all the stops because the eyes of the nation were on her and because there was so much popular interest.

    172. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What could be simpler.

      A third party making the entire issue moot.

      The real problem here has nothing to do with privacy, or conflicts of interest, or even really anything at all about the sources and magnitude of Romney's income. The real problem here comes from focusing on Mit's taxes, from demands for birth certificates, from stains on blue dresses, from the Swift Boat Veterans Against Obama, from all the myriad piddling little distractions, that dominate the media coverage of arguable one of the most important choices the world makes every four years.

      We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich... And we quibble over whether fabulously-rich-guy made "disgusting" or "-obscene" amounts of money by outsourcing jobs to China???

      I support these guys releasing Mit's taxes solely because it will take one (of many) non-issues out of the spotlight.

    173. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for the TSA I'd never get my cock groped

    174. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      But when you transfer bitcoin to another account, your IP is recorded.

      Not really. Some services like blockchain.info keep track of the IPs their node first sees a transaction coming from in a database separate from the blockchain itself but since transactions are relayed it's hard to prove where a transaction originates from without the capability to simultaneously eavesdrop on every node in the network.

    175. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, prosecution of crime (like everything else we do) is going to have priorities assigned.

      In my opinion, the priorities are all wrong. Currently the priority seems to be assigned based on who the victim was. So if your victim is famous and powerful, the victim is more likely to get justice.

      Instead, I think that if the alleged perp is famous and powerful, they should be more likely to face justice.

      Since Watergate was done under the orders of the most powerful man in the free world, it deserved to be prosecuted. And you might want to note that Nixon never served time for that crime.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    176. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Oh Geez. Harry Reid is a fine example on economic issues. They don't call him Dirty Harry for no reason.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    177. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're correct. I'm familiar with the BTC protocol. People can send the scammer BTC while he's off line, and he can join the network to see how much he's got without anyone in the world having any information about who or where he is. The ledger is public and he can see if he's been paid just the same as I can. By the way, he hasn't been paid much - just 0.35BTC so far for hiding the returns, and 1.14BTC for releasing them. He can verify that a payment has been made without risk of any kind, other than belonging to the world-wide bitcoin P2P network, which while suspicious is no crime.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    178. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information

      Which is relevant why? Maybe you should change your laws but until you do don't go pretending that what other countries do is an argument to defend breaching someone's privacy. Stoning is included in the laws of 7 countries, that does not mean it is less wrong if I stone someone to death in a country that doesn't allow it.

      There's plenty of reasons to think this should be public; none of it excuses this, nor means it shouldn't be condemned. It's amazing how hypocritical many readers are when it comes to thinking 'anything' they do should be private and yet having no qualms about defending those who out private information about others.

    179. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is completely different, you are talking about two different people paying taxes (the plumber and their customers). With investments it is the same person paying taxes on the same money more than once (once then they earned it, and a second time when they invested it).

      I am not any where near the 1% (according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States I am somewhere in the middle 33%), but I have investments for when I retire. I don't want those investments taxed again just because I decided not to blow all my money on xbox games.

    180. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      Wait, you don't think a crime done for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election for the POTUS is more serious than one that is done just to annoy someone or for financial gain?

      That depends on how much damage it actually did.

      How much of an impact did the email hack have on the election? Just about none. So yeah, while that kid was stupid and what he did was illegal, I think someone who actually stole millions of dollars from pensions is more serious.

      How much of an impact would Romney's tax returns have? Well, I can't really say, as I haven't seen them. But it is customary for candidates (or even people vying for the party's nomination) to release tax returns. One could make the argument that Romney is trying to influence the election by going against what is customary.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    181. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Only the wealthy have enough money to bear the risk of investment. Or did you fail to notice all these retirement funds

      Again, mixing unrelated concepts. Retirement plans fall under yet another set of rules intended to encourage the middle class to save for retirement.

      Unless you are insolvent you have some savings, and no matter where you keep that money it should be earning capital gains. Being rich has nothing to do with it, other than the amount of money involved.

    182. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      As frustrating as it is, the behaviour is hardly surprising. If a well publicised crime isn't solved it makes the people investigating look far worse than if it's some 'nobody'. Also, given the political slant, there's a very real risk of people claiming a lack of thorough investigation was politically motivated.

      The fact of the matter is it makes rational sense to focus more resources on certain cases, expecting them to do otherwise is naive. It's the same depressing logic that makes complaining on twitter more effective than in private email; and worse, that makes people with lots of followers more likely to get a satisfactory (or better) resolution than us mere mortals.

    183. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Relayman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Only Republicans are allowed to make up crap from thin air.

      Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
      A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    184. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arth1 · · Score: 0

      Which is relevant why?

      It shows that it's possible to do so in Western democracies.

    185. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by msauve · · Score: 0

      Good luck eating your sliver of an IOU note.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    186. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to 3, the GOP has done the math, and apparently decided the truth would be more damaging than stonewalling his tax records release, or they wouldn't be doing it. Did Romney do something illegal with his taxes in the past that he is trying to hide? - I highly doubt it. Did he do stuff that will make him seem more out of touch with the average American? - most likely, and probably combination of Swiss/Cayman/Bahamas tax shelters, probably splitting himself up into ten or twelve different tax entities, one which owns this house, one which owns that one, one which holds his cars, and somehow he rents it all from himself at a loss. Standard super rich guy tax dodges. I think the real story here is, not that Romney won't release his taxes, but that Romney is a guy who has been lining up on a Presidential run for 6 or 8 years now, and he didn't think to pretty up his taxes at any time before 2010. Stupid.

    187. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.

      There's a story about one of LBJ's elections where he instructed his staffers to spread the rumor that his opponent had a secret sexual fondness for pigs. When they told him, "My god, we can't say that. It can't possibly be true," Johnson's response was, "I know, but let's make the son of a bitch deny it."

      There comes a point where the only effective denial is to show the real returns, like he should have in the first place. The best thing Democrats can do on this one is keep their hands clean... and hope like hell it leaks anyway. The elected ones can take the moral high road of saying it'd be inappropriate to comment on documents obtained illegally, but don't worry, we've got pundits for that! The Carvilles and Schultzes and Begalas will tear it apart, and they'll be on every Sunday morning show, and every prime time news show.

      This can be VERY politically damaging for Romney without being true or particularly effective. There are a finite amount of days left between now and the election in which to get out your message to voters. 30% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans, and the other 40% actually win you the election. Every news cycle eaten up talking about a probably-fake tax story is a news cycle where they're not talking about the Romney-Ryan plan (assuming they ever actually come up with one and release it). It also keeps people thinking about Romney's biggest liabilities, like his casual relationship with the truth, and his offshore bank accounts.

      Odds are this is a hoax and nothing comes of it, but your comment that Democrats wouldn't use this information shows a shocking level of naiveté about politics.

      And also a shocking level of naiveté about BitCoin. Bit Coin Servers? Seriously?

    188. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".

      Yes, that's why it's down to 20 years.

      The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

      source

      As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).

    189. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      No-one has unlimited resources. You (and I, and everyone else) need to prioritize what you do with your time, energy, and money.

      I will, therefore, pick what I do based on how much it matters to me. There are two attributes that place someone's request at the top of the list:

      * Do I care about someone for emotional attachment reasons (my wife, my brother, a very close friend)?
      * Do I care about someone for fiscal reasons (I need money to live and that person gives me a job and signs my paycheck. Or they aren't my manager, but for some reason they matter significantly to the person who does pay me - a big customer, a good friend of theirs, someone who can help our company in some way)?

      Sometimes those might conflict (work overtime or be at home with my family for dinner?) and I need to prioritize. Beyond that, everything else gets rank ordered (I care about those who are less fortunate than me and so I give to charity, after I've provided for my family).

      Managers and employees all have to make decisions on how they spend their time (personal and business). If you are in law enforcement, you are upholding the laws of the land and protecting your nation's security. Politicians, judges, etc., have a great deal to do with the laws and the security of the land. That puts them high in the priority list for law enforcement.

      I'm simplifying, but not very much. Isn't that common sense?

    190. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Of course, unlike Obama, neither Mitt Romney's father nor his grandfather were polygamists. Both were married to the same woman for their entire lives.

      I never said they were polygamists. And your accusation of Obama being one is patently ridiculous.

    191. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Whether the "complaint" applies to Romney or not, the fact is that he paid the taxes that he was required to pay.

      Some might scream that he used tax laws to his advantage. But I guarantee you multi-millionaires Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, etc. all play by the same tax laws.

    192. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Straif · · Score: 1

      I believe the argument is that your paycheck is a expenditure by the business so is in fact a tax deduction to them. The first time that that money is taxed is when you receive it in your paycheck.

      The dividends are considered profits and taxed at the normal rate and then when paid out to the investors taxed again at the capital gains rate.

      So a company making $1,000,000 with $600,000 in salary would only be taxed on the remaining $400,000. That remainder of the $400,000 (assuming they keep none of the profits for themselves), after taxes, is then taxed at the capital gains rate when paid out to the investors.

      The end result is the $600,000 is taxed once, at the person tax rate of the employees receiving it, and the $400,000 is taxed once at the business tax rate and then whatever is left over is taxed a second time at the capital gains rate when the investors receive it.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    193. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by burleywinz · · Score: 2

      Social security numbers are unique at any given time. However, they can be reused when a person dies.

      Wrong. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/86

    194. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by pla · · Score: 1

      Yes, the FBI runs like mad to grab the server the bitcoins dropped into

      What server? A lot of comments in this thread seem to assume that "sending" Bitcoins requires someone to "receive" them - Which doesn't hold true. When I pay someone in BTC, I basically just tag some portion of a block as now belonging to a new address. The recipient never needs to acknowledge receipt of them, never needs to "go" somewhere to retrieve them, hell, you don't even need a "real" recipient (you could conceivably create a BTC address for which no valid private key exists, though you couldn't realistically prove that).

      The recipient doesn't "do" anything until they actually spend those BTC. At that point, the FBI may have at least a chance of working back to the recipient by old-school methods ("You sold someone a hefty chunk of gold, tell us who or we break your fing... I mean, harmlessly waterboard you!"), but a clever recipient could avoid that threat entirely by using a QR-encoded one-off wallet and a drop site such as a bus station pay-locker (the kind that you can take the key and then get to open it exactly once before it locks). By the time the block chain records an actual transfer, the recipient has their chunk o' gold and the seller knows nothing at all about the buyer.

    195. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were running for president then I would most certainly ask you to release your tax returns.
      I would not vote for you if you did not. Either own up to the low tax rate, or drop out of the race. Refusing to do what is standard practice, in fact is a practice HIS OWN FATHER STARTED shows he has something bad to hide. Why would you vote for someone who is too busy stuffing skeletons back in his closet to pay attention to the real issues.

      Dont vote for Obama or Romney. Vote for the candidate that best suits your views. Voting for the two major partys to ensure one in particular doesn't win is ultimately a loosing strategy..

    196. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      As this decade-old comic strip puts it, it's only double taxation when it happens to rich people:

      http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/03/08/

    197. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.

      This is correct. However, the investment involved risk, and is good/necessary for the economy to function. This is why investments get a lower tax-rate, to encourage investment, which encourages business which encourages hiring which drives the economy. It's harder to convince someone to take on investment risk if the government limits the up-side. Look at it this way, you invest 200K and you could either lose it all, break even or make a return on the investment - currently if you get a return on the investment, you only get 85% of it and the government takes 15% - but you took all of the risk (there is no risk in working a regular job (W-2 income), you are guaranteed to make your wage). If the government took 30-39% of the return, and still assumed none of the risk, where is the incentive to invest? It's really penny-wise and pound-foolish to consider taxing investment returns like regular income.

    198. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. Stupidly enough, the whole 'civil suit' system was originally intended to try to balance that out a bit.. if the DoJ didn't want to do the job you had another recourse... then an increasing number of laws were written where civil suits were the only recourse.. then we started shaming anyone who uses them.

    199. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Polygamists can and are often married to the same woman for their entire lives. They're just not only married to that woman.

    200. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by kenaaker · · Score: 2
      Once you got done describing the scenario, everything you wrote was wrong. I can't say it any more clearly than that.

      If the plumber is competent to run the business, he's been tracking the money that he's invested in his business for 40 years, taking depreciation where it's allowed and following the current tax laws. Most of those investments are used to decrease the capital gain of the business sale. And, once the division is made between capital gains on the business worth and regular income from the business he'll pay capital gains on just the portion in excess of his investments. Actually with 40 years in business, the business basis is probably worth more than 2 million dollars, so he probably wouldn't pay anything in capital gains.

      Stop talking smack... Learn about something then try to contribute to the conversation.

    201. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his corporation is taxed on the income, and then he is taxed on that same income when it transfers to his personal name (via dividend payment or salary payment or whatever), then that is double taxation.

      This is a real thing.

    202. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      1) At one time in the US, tax returns were public information.

      The reason for this is interesting. The IRS thought that by making the information public, people would want to report all their income to show off their wealth, and would be ashamed to hide income because then other people in their community would think they were poor. But it didn't work out that way. It actually made people more likely to hide their income. Although there is a stereotype of people wanting to flaunt their wealth, most people don't fit that stereotype. If a doctor is known to be rich, his patients will resent it, and may take their business elsewhere. If a businessman is known to be rich, his customers will pressure him for lower prices. Anyone who is publicly known to be wealthy will have to deal with friends and family members wanting loans or handouts.

      So the reason tax returns are secret, is because privacy reduces cheating.

    203. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I am sorry if it read that way. It was supposed to indicate that both Obama's father and his grandfather were polygamists, not that Obama himself is a polygamist.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    204. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by pkuyken · · Score: 1

      Except that the intent behind the blackmail (beyond the money) is to influence a presidential election via illegal means.

    205. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could be simpler.

      Letting these folk release the info they already pinched and finding out whether he cheated on his taxes, then not voting for him anyway cause he's a knob - seems a lot simpler to me, as it requires less effort on my part and is already partly underway.

      Although your way does seem more legitimate.

    206. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the scenario that most Libtards don't get.

      ...

      You're an idoit.

      Anyone "barely making a living" and paying 30% taxes is doing something very wrong. If you are paying 30%, you are making decent money. Probably not as much as one would like, but good money nonetheless.

      And anyone selling a business that was built over the course of 40 years and pays more than the paltry capital gains tax needs to find a better tax attorney. And, yes, I think that the capital gains taxes in this country are ridiculously low. That person just made $2M. That's income and needs to be taxed as such.

    207. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nice troll assumption there... I include everybody in the demand for info.. There is no reason to differentiate between the two wings of the same party, and I didn't here either. Time for you to stop with the diversions and help give them all the bum's rush.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    208. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The issue is what is "earned income" and what is "capital gains." It isn't perfect, but when you are paid in "carried interest" in a job, then why should it not be "earned income?"

      Earned income is taxed at the standard marginal tax rates, where as carried interest can be taxed at long term capital gains rates. Stock option compensation by contrast is taxed as regular income. Earned income is subject to social security withholding as well.

      There are plenty of ways to minimize tax liability if you have a lot of money. If you earn $1MM in a year and pay $200k in federal taxes, that is still a hell of a lot of money being paid. When you add state income taxes, sales taxes, etc., a heck of a lot of money is still being paid in taxes. If you earn $100k from a regular job and pay $20k in federal income taxes after deductions, you are effectively paying the same rate... what is the complaint?

    209. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is when he wants to be president. How do I know he has not been bought off.

      Now I believe he should have the right to refuse, I'm just saying people have the right to refuse to vote for him because he doesn't release it.

    210. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Subtle jokes bypass you.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    211. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.

      Indeed -- privacy for everybody. Right up until they decide to run for public office. Then they'd damn well better show us any records they can that will show that they're trustworthy. Not because they must, but because they *should*.

      Tax records are really a pretty fucking weak demand anyway. It's basically public information, and unless you have something to hide there's no reason a national politician should feel ashamed to show them. The fact that he hasn't shown them speaks volumes about his own attitudes towards what he thinks about them: he clearly doesn't honestly believe that what he has paid in taxes is fair.

      Hell, Obama showed everybody his birth certificate, even though that was an idiotic demand to begin with. Romney's tax information might just let people judge whether he really does "get it" when it comes to being a middle-class citizen. (of course, anybody who's still on the fence about whether Romney (I-bought-a-dancing-horse-for-the-tax-writeoff) "gets it" is fucking clueless anyway)

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    212. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by yuje · · Score: 1

      Mitt paid 15% using the "carried interest" loophole, meaning he takes a percentage cut of his clients' gains and that gets taxed at 15%. In other words, it's not his invested money that he initially earned but his clients'. Regular salesmen at the local mall pay taxes on their commissions at the same rates their base pay, but Mitt (and other investment bankers) don't.

    213. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      This is a slippery slope to everything being public property.

    214. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Actually, Obama Sr. was a bigamist, though his grandfather was a polygamist.

    215. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want my vote then I 100% demand that my representative dances to the people's tune. He is there to represent his constituents. If he is unwilling to do what I as a voter wants him to, then I will not vote for him, and encourage others to vote against him. These are my constitutional rights.

    216. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically that's a rule for re-use of numbeers ^.^

    217. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, prosecution of crime (like everything else we do) is going to have priorities assigned. We do not have infinite resources. And like it or not, any crime which is done for the purposes of influencing an election is going to get a high priority, whether you think the crime would actually influence the election or not.

      This is a perfect opportunity for the Free Market to mediate efficient use of limited resources: for every crime, the PD can open a bidding process among independent contractors for the solution of the crime. Victims could chip in on the costs, and we'd quickly end up with all crimes perfectly solved for the least possible amount of money and in direct proportion to their impact on the victim.

      We'd be able to get rid of a literal army of government employees currently being paid to sit in black cars, eat doughnuts, and collect outrageous pensions, replacing them with self-motivated entrepreneurs.

    218. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corporation gets taxes prior to disbursement. Unless you're GE.

    219. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      I expect about 50% of the voting population will take that approach, it's the other 50% that may not want to know in case there is actually something improper that's the problem.

      What, exactly, is the problem? That not everyone thinks like you?

      If people don't care to know about his finances, what good is disclosing them going to do? Perhaps you think that there should be some kind of test before you vote, and everyone that doesn't give the 'correct' (ie your) answers is barred from voting.

      I don't think tbannist was actually saying what you appear to be replying to. My reading of the GP here hinges on the bolded part. I interpreted their post as not being a statement of "anyone who disagrees with me, is bad", which seems to be your interpretation of tbannist's post, but instead as a statement of "anyone who is willfully ignorant in order to avoid learning anything inconvenient, causes problems when participating in a democracy".

      The former is a childish sentiment, and I agree with your concerns. However, the latter has generally proven true over the course of history: democracy works best when the electorate is as informed as possible, and ignorance, especially willful ignorance, causes democracy to work not so well, resulting in the interests of the elected leaders being less well aligned with the interests of the electorate.

      (Note that I am in no way stating any opinion about the hacking incident in the OP -- I'm simply commenting on tbannist's post and bws111's reply.)

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    220. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by iluvcapra · · Score: 2

      On the other hand dividends are paid from cash that a company has in the bank, all of which has been taxed prior to being paid out as dividends.

      Money is not taxed, entities are. Dollars don't get taxed at some checkpoint somewhere, thus becoming "depleted," tax liability is created when people or companies do things.

      Shareholders pay income taxes on dividends because they're nominally arms-length from business decisions of the corporation, their capacity to gain from dividends is independent and severable from the corporation's ability to control its tax liability. Exceptions in the rules are made for capital gains because there is an actual risk of loss of capital; dividends and wages carry no such risk. Shareholders have no control over the size of their dividend, or wether they get it at all, and the amount has nothing to do with how profitable the corporation is, and the corporate management is under no obligation to pay them. Dividends are a pure economic rent, they produce nothing and are given in exchange for nothing, and they exist only because the state has created an artificial legal entity that shields the shareholders from unlimited liability.

      Taxes on dividends are the price, and the consequence, of the distinct personality and legal liability of corporations from their shareholders. If corporations and their shareholders were legally indistinguishable, then they wouldn't have to pay "double" taxes, but then they'd also be fully liable for the losses the corporation endured.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    221. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      Which is why it is private (well, privacy-relevant) information. Which is why connecting it with a person it is a violation of privacy.

    222. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Genda · · Score: 1

      There are two things going on here...
      1. Criminals extorting a politician... not sure who the bad guy is on this moral spectrum, but let's say Mitt's a great guy and the punks are simply criminals.
      2. How do you expect to get a million dollars from someone for showing their tax returns? Anybody wanna see mine for a million dollars, hell I'd attach 20 years of tax returns to the friggin Goodyear Blimp over Time Square. This could just be an extreme need for privacy, but I can't help feeling like he has something really awful to hide. It might just make sense at this point to share his tax returns, so what it he took deductions on leather and rubber fetish goods. What he does in the privacy of his torture room is between him and his top... Owwww SAFEWORD!!!! ;-)

    223. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      No, and I never said any such thing. You did not lose your right to privacy by applying for a job. You voluntarily gave up some of privacy in exchange for a job. If you did not give up that private information (and a criminal background is public record, not private information), you may not be hired, but that did not mean that the company is now free to collect your urine or blood for a hair sample involuntarily.

      The question is not whether or not Romney should disclose his finances. That is up to the voters to decide - if they think the financial information is important and not provided they are perfectly free to not vote for him. The question is whether or not it is OK to violate a persons privacy just because they did not provide some information you want. It is not OK.

    224. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      You might have written that sarcastically, but in fact many Repubs I knew in 1974 were furious that anyone had the nerve to investigate pretty much anything the Nixon Administration did. And it didn't take long for a certain non-elected president to deep-six the whole matter by issuing a full pardon to Tricky Dick.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    225. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I understand your problem. But your solution is absolutely retarded. There are way better solutions than to lower the rates of people who do consistently make $1M a year.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    226. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      By that logic, I should get reduced taxes on the interest (ha!) from what I have in savings because if I hadn't been taxed on my earnings, I could have put more in savings, and then earn more interest. Or more on my IRA. Or more on whatever other financial vehicle I have to save/invest.

      But that's a stupid conclusion. At some point you just have to say, "ok, here's what I'm taking out to pay taxes" and forget about it. It's all these stupid exceptions and loopholes that make the tax code so damn complex and easily-gamed-if-you-have-the-resources to begin with.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    227. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought GGP's post was perfectly reasonable, and he did call for going after the blackmailers, so what is your beef with him?

    228. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      In your example you (1) Borrow $1M, (2) Buy stock, (3) Sell stock. There is no tax due on the $1M anywhere because it wasn't income. If the stock goes up by 10% you have a capital gain and owe tax on that $100K, but if the stock goes down by 10% you have a loss of $100K and need to find a way to pay back the loan.

      The complaint is that tax laws treat some compensation differently. If you are paid $1M in salary you owe income tax on $1M. But there are ways you could receive something other than salary that might be worth $1M at some time in the future, and when that future date arrives the $1M is treated as investment income instead of salary. This is where the $150K came from, 15% on capital gains rather than whatever the tax rate is on a $1M salary.

      By the way, this loophole is why Al Gore is worth $100M today

    229. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Ok, so if it's not really a hash, but more of a public key

      It's the former of the latter:

      "A Bitcoin address is a 160-bit hash of the public portion of a public/private ECDSA keypair."

    230. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

      I think he is saying that Obama's father was a polygamist which is true.
      I really don't see what difference it makes though, you are not your father after all.

    231. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      . If the government took 30-39% of the return, and still assumed none of the risk, where is the incentive to invest?

      Still there? I mean, are you really going to take your 70+% and go home?

      And the government does assume some of the risk. See also, bank bailouts in 2008, social security in case you lose your retirement funds, etc. And other costs (SEC, etc.) required for you to invest your money.

      (there is no risk in working a regular job (W-2 income), you are guaranteed to make your wage)

      There are risks (corporate bankrupcy) associated with W-2 work. Esp. if bonuses are invovled. But you seem to think we should tax people on based on risk. That seems fundamentally insane. Progressive tax systems work on income, not safety of investments.

      But I forgot, that's why inflation indexed government bonds are taxed at 50-80% while lottery winnings are taxed at negative 82%

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    232. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Money is not taxed, entities are. Dollars don't get taxed at some checkpoint somewhere, thus becoming "depleted," tax liability is created when people or companies do things.

      I guess if you can't handle the shorthand:

      On the other hand dividends are paid from cash that a company has in the bank, all of which is accumulated through transactions that the company paid taxes on.

    233. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As of this moment (and certainly when the tax returns were made) he is an American citizen, and nothing more, just like you.

      True (if one believes the birth certificate). However his money spends the summer on the Cayman Islands and winters in Switzerland.

    234. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Uranuscrats?

      More commonly known as asshats.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    235. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Genda · · Score: 1

      That's because if you have a medium scale economic crash instead of loosing 85% of your money, you only loose 5% with a Tresury Bond, What this says is that people are so afraid of the current economic climate they're actually choosing small loss hedge over what they fear will be big loss. Of course if the whole thing goes down in flames and we have to move to a new currency in a hyper-inflationary blowout, your T Bills will be best used to wipe your sore and aching hinny.

    236. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Genda · · Score: 1

      Ssshhhhhh, that's only for the 144,000. Keep that to yourself please!

    237. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by smisle · · Score: 1

      One huge difference, even if the tax returns were stolen by the DNC, is that the goal of the Watergate robbery was to cover up information, and the tax returns were stolen in order to give the American public more information (or to make a million bit coin bucks, but you'd have to be pretty dumb to think you would be able to get away with that).

      I agree with the parent that well known figures receive much more than their share of protection by the law. It makes some sense for political figures, as they can make some pretty powerful enemies in the course of their work, but it makes me sick when millions are spent chasing down a kid email hacker when murder cases are closed because no one really gives a damn.

      --
      I'm not a bird, I'm a super-advanced flying stealth dinosaur!
    238. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      The reason the scammers probably don't have any real tax return information is that none seems to have been leaked. Proving you have information can be done in many ways, such as releasing the exact amount of a certain deduction, or the SHA-1 hash of a whole electronic document. Proving they have the real thing is so easy, we can assume it's a scam if they didn't. Now, having Romney lie and deny it's genuine would quickly end his chances of winning the election. Reporters would come out of the woodwork to verify random facts from the returns. I could probably verify a few from home using Google. They lie would be almost instantly exposed.

      This is some extremely faulty logic, but is unfortunately typical.

      You CAN NOT use publically available information to prove that private parts of a document are real. If reporters (or you) can verify that information is 'real' from public sources, then a forger can use those same public sources to make the forgery in the first place. You have proved nothing at all.

      I hate to think what you think an SHA-1 hash proves. These were (supposedly) paper documents, not electronic. Even if they were electronic what would it prove?

    239. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.

      If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?

      This is not the argument. The argument applies to dividends, not capital gains. When you own stock, the company will sometimes (it depends on the company) pay dividends to the owners of the stock. The dividends come from the after-tax company profits. So the company has paid taxes on the money, gives the money to its owners and then the owners have to pay taxes on it. That is the double taxation argument. It is most clear if you imagine a single stockholder holding all of the stock.

    240. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt

      That's true of every Ponzi scheme too, right up until it isn't.

      The law of exponents catches up with everything eventually. You can't bribe math.

    241. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. I figured it would happen like that, but my google-fu was too weak.

      --
      What?
    242. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Was there a point in there? So people were furious - the investigations occurred nevertheless. And Ford paid the price for the pardon by being voted out of office.

    243. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Genda · · Score: 1

      Funny, the second bullet point here says that sometimes more than one person can be assigned the same SSN.

      Especially when someone buys that number from a little shanty down in Calexico for $250. Hell sometime there a couple hundred people using one number. Buenas dias Gringo!

    244. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you buy a house, the amount you paid becomes public information. Anyone can search and find my property tax records on the web. Am I not a "private citizen"? (And you don't see the contradiction between those two words? Really???)

    245. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by celle · · Score: 1

      "By that logic the entire Watergate scandal should never have been prosecuted - after all, it was just a simple office burglary."

          You left out that simple office burglary was ordered by the president of the United States. Until Obama is directly linked to the copying of Romney's tax records they're not the same.

          PS. This whole thing reads more like a way to manipulate the bitcoin market than anything. If they do have Romney's records they will most likely release them anyway.
          PPS. No matter what else is going on it is definitely setup to be a popcorn moment.

    246. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Bitcoins work the way you think they do.

    247. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      You highlight another reason investments shouldn't be taxed -- risk.

      By that logic you wouldn't tax any wages in at-will states either, since the work risks losing his/her job at any moment.

    248. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      You've offered no math and no support for your claims. You don't have "math" you have ideology.

    249. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I never said that this case and Watergate are the same. What I said was that IF the Watergate breakin had been treated like people want this case treated, there would not have been a Watergate scandal. The Watergate case would have just been written off as a simple office breakin. Everything that followed the breakin was a result of INVESTIGATING the breakin. In this case we have people saying that they should not investigate the case, and others, like you, saying that it is completely different from Watergate because the president has not been implicated. Well how are we ever going to know if the president is implicated if there is no investigation?

      Note that I am in no way saying the president, DNC, or anyone else in particular has anything to do with this case. All I am saying is that politically motivated crimes, where the intent is to influence an election, do deserve a higher priority than random crimes.

    250. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information

      The United States isn't "many countries". It's the US. How much money someone makes or how much they paid in taxes is none of your business here. Speculate all you like, but unless the IRS starts asking questions, Romney's tax returns are his business and his business alone. If you don't like that, tough, because the majority of Americans like it that way and don't want to give some Internet asshat access to their tax info.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    251. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not any additional risk than anyone else earning an income, which is everyone. Plus, you have to fund the government somehow.

      With capital gains, you risk your hard earned and already taxed income to invest in a business or fund that you feel will earn you a return. The point I was making is that because there is already a risk that you will lose money on your investment, we don't need further discouragement of investment and related growth by adding more taxes. We should be doing everything we can to encourage investment and growth. Until we do, it should be no wonder as to why our economy is in the poor state it is in.

    252. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am on my phone at the moment so it's hard to post info, but Romney lied about his taxes when running for governor. It's well documented.

    253. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No-one is being taxed twice. You pay your income tax when you earn the money. Then you pay the capital gains tax on the gains you've made investing that money.

      The question remains, why the gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income (yeah, create jobs yadda yadda - does anyone still believe that bullshit?).

    254. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The polygamist nature of the compound he supposedly lived in till age 5 being relevant....how? Or is this one of those things called "smearing your opponent"?

      Please guys, lets try to elevate this out of the muck. If you have a problem with Romney's policy persuasion, then vote on it. Dont smear the guy with irrelevant attacks though, it does noone any favors.

    255. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cdrguru · · Score: 0

      Look, with less than half of the American people paying income taxes the solution is simple - 100% taxation. You send it all in to the government.

      Then, if you qualify (and everyone will, then) for assistance the government gives you back something to live on. With the firm understanding that if you do not vote for the "right" people your funding will be cut off. The "right" people will be explained to you just before the election.

      This eliminates the idea of "rich" people, because anyone with any assets at all will simply move out of the country. So no more rich or poor people, everyone living on what the government gives them.

      I think a guy named Lenin tried this program around 1921 or so. It has been awhile and people don't really read much about history anymore, and when they do it doesn't make any sense to them. So by all means, we should try it again.

      What? You mean we already started doing that?

    256. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Still there? I mean, are you really going to take your 70+% and go home?

      Yes. I'd really find another game to play that offered a better return. Let's be honest - most investments don't double your money. The touted good return figure is 12%. At 15% rate, I get 10.2% return on my money and the government gets the remaining 1.8% . At 30-39 (lets say 35%), I get 7.8% and the government gets 4.2% all with the risk of losing my (already taxed) principle investment. So, yes, I'd move my money to where I could get a better return - say investment in foreign companies overseas where the tax rate is less.

      But you seem to think we should tax people on based on risk.

      That's not what I said. I said risk should be taken into consideration along with the fact that increased investment helps everybody and is necessary for the economy. The more return an individual gets, the more he is likely to re-invest them. Having more of the money siphoned to the government does not grow the economy, it shrinks it. Government cannot grow the economy, only business can. Government can be of assistance (as well as be a hindrance) but it is not in the driver's seat and not in complete control.

    257. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say that in front of the TSA fag. I want to see you get anal raped.

    258. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Can we just agree that GPs post was ridiculous nonsense...

      No more ridiculous than saying that we don't have the right to properly vet anybody who wants authority (especially this kind) as we see fit. Why do you ignore this little fact? You are right about one thing.. We should make it clear to all at the start that if they don't want to cough it up, they will not get our vote. Maybe then we'll get a better class of used car salesmen in office.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    259. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      You are correct and I don't dispute your understanding of the process... But have you heard of Bitcoin launderers? The trail on the other side of the laundry would be "Dead" since there are so many putting money in and then taking it out in varying transaction sizes to varying numbers of wallets. Unless the particular laundry they used was compromised by the investigators, they would get away scot free (minus the laundry fee, of course).

    260. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great. But what is the difference between a valid bitcoin and a made-up value that isn't really a bitcoin?

      Would someone be able to sit down and in five minutes (or less) have a PRNG churn out a list of things that purports to be bitcoin identifiers but aren't really? How would someone receiving a million individual items be able to check that all of them are actually valid? Sounds like the right approach would be to turn over a list of said identifiers on paper so they have to be keyed in individually, all million of them, while demanding the documents and all copies "right now!!!"

      It might take a couple of years to validate all million identifiers. I suppose you stop with the first invalid one and say that this is all a scam and they were ripped off.

      Difference here being that the difference between a valid and a forged $1 bill is one that passes certain proscribed tests and if those tests are passed, the $1 bill is valid and would be accepted anywhere.

    261. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When your stock award vests, you pay income tax for it, same as any other form of compensation. Note that this means that if your stock doesn't vest immediately, you're going to have to report it as compensation at the price it'll actually have when it vests.

      The sleazy scheme is when you avoid capital gain taxes for that stock later by using it as a collateral to secure loans, and then living off those loans. They don't count as income, and so you don't pay any tax from them; and when you die, your estate can sell the stock essentially tax-free. Of course, this requires you to have enough stock to borrow what you need for the rest of your life, like Zuckerberg, Ellison or Jobs.

    262. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it makes rich people bigger targets for theft and fraud.

    263. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You hilited the correct phrase - 'they may not want to know'. If they don't want to know, they don't care. In other words, they don't think that Mitt Romney's finances have anything to do with his ability to be a good president. And if they don't think that his finances have anything to do with his fitness for the presidency, how is releasing his tax returns going to make them suddenly care? It isn't.

      And that was my point about passing a test. It seems like both you and tbannist would prefer if someone had to correctly answer the question "Are a candidate's finances an important consideration when voting for president?" If they don't correctly answer that question then they have demonstrated 'willful ignorance' and are unfit to participate in democracy.

    264. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      It's because the information is public knowledege and easy to verify. Anyone can access the US Treasury's "Debt To The Penny" series and the Federal Reserve's Z1 table and see if debt is or is not increasing exponentially faster than economic output (from the BEA).

      The mathematical unsustainability of the US government's deficits has been common knowledge since I was in grade school in the 1980s, anyone who's still in denial is being willfully ignorant or disingenuous.

    265. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should blackmail be prosecuted? What is wrong with it? Is it the act of giving people information? If so, it would be hard to justify how it can be universally wrong or else you'd have to criminalize each and every such case including your own comments here. Is it the act of offering the choice of trade that is preferable in exchange for withholding the information from the rest of the world? Again, trade cannot be deemed wrong in any valid and consistent universal way without absurd conclusions regarding what we all do each and every moment of every day.

      The only component left in this story is the act of acquiring the information to begin with: the violation of property ownership to get this tax return. We already have decent reasoning for why this behavior is wrong. It has nothing to do with blackmail and should not be conflated. It would be like denouncing the act of creating wealth by picking a case where a man stole to acquire his fortune and conflating the events in order to say that having money itself is wrong.

    266. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All members of government should have no privacy whatsoever so that we may select from the best leaders.

    267. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, let see, we have sales tax, liquor tax, cigarette taxes, that everyone who has paid their income tax get taxed on in addition to already being taxed. Now, let's see there's taxes on any interest from any accounts that earn interest, there's taxes you have to pay if you bought your house and then have to pay taxes for any capital gains when you sell it.

      What you seem to be forgetting is that Romney and others like him have the ability to use offshore accounts to sidestep a lot of these taxes that ordinary Americans don't have the ability to access but yet still have to pay their taxes that helps keep the American economy moving. Romney and others like him are side-stepping their tax obligations and making the average Americans have to pay more to make up for what Romney and his ilk are doing. Yeah, go ahead and claim it is all legal, because Congress made the laws to make it legal because all these politicians that were paid for by Romney and his ilk paid (lobbied) for these tax breaks. Sheesh.

    268. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich...

      Unfortunately. Those share bipartisan consensus.

      So we must debate on less relevant but highly controversial and emotional issues.

      And remember, it's all about the right image and rhetoric. The other guy is a tool and you are THE BEST!

      Democracy is flawed in the sense that, it's not about representing people but winning one contest every couple of years and then being able to act like a king (with or without opposition from nobles of another faction).

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    269. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great. But what is the difference between a valid bitcoin and a made-up value that isn't really a bitcoin?

      Bitcoin addresses are hashes of public keys. There isn't any such thing as "a bitcoin". There is a public transaction ledger listing transfers of balances between different addresses. The set of all addresses holding a non-zero balance is small enough to fit in RAM for a typical computer so it's not really difficult to verify.

      How would someone receiving a million individual items be able to check that all of them are actually valid?

      The network does that for you. Somebody trying to send from an address with no balance wouldn't get other nodes to relay their transaction nor the miners to include it in a block.

      Sounds like the right approach would be to turn over a list of said identifiers on paper so they have to be keyed in individually, all million of them, while demanding the documents and all copies "right now!!!"

      It might take a couple of years to validate all million identifiers.

      That's not how bitcoin transfers work. What's broadcast on the network is an order to transfer funds from one address to another address, signed by the pubic key of the sending address. As mentioned before, invalid transactions are rejected automatically.

      It is possible to effectively move bitcoin balances out of band by giving someone a private key to an address which contains a balance but it doesn't take long to verify it it's valid or not.

      In any case sending 1,000,000 bitcoins requires a single transaction: (source address, destination address, amount). It doesn't involve communicating.a million identifiers.

    270. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      The polygamist nature of the compound he supposedly lived in till age 5 being relevant....how? Or is this one of those things called "smearing your opponent"?

      Please guys, lets try to elevate this out of the muck. If you have a problem with Romney's policy persuasion, then vote on it. Dont smear the guy with irrelevant attacks though, it does noone any favors.

      In case you hadn't noticed, I was correcting someone's claim of Romney being born in Mexico. The polygamist angle is just a detail of why his father was born there. Apparently, I was correcting someone who knew very well he was making a false claim but that fact went over my head until it was explained to me by another.

    271. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.

      As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information - the lists are made public, and searchable. Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?

      When first introduced, SSNs where indeed supposed to be private and secure, used ONLY for the Social Security program. Somehow, they have morphed into a personal ID number used far beyond the scope of the Social Security program.

    272. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      First of all, Romney is not a 'member of the government'.

      Second, what you meant was 'select from the best leaders who don't value privacy'. Which is undoubtedly a very small percentage of the 'best leaders' (probably 0).

      Lastly, what makes you think (assuming you are capable of thought) that someone who values his own privacy so little is going to give a damn about your privacy?

    273. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The scammer just needs to find easily verifiable information in Mitt's tax returns that is not easily found otherwise. For example, I doubt Romney has multiple wives stuffed away in various towns in Utah, but the names and addresses of those wives would make it simple for reporters to prove he does. The scammer could for publish a list of bills of sale for vehicles, houses, and other property Mitt bought and sold over the years, and the taxes he paid on them each year. Like the secret wives, It should be far easier to prove Mitt owned property once you know where to look.

      Of course, it's trivial to convince the owner of the private information that you have a copy. That's what the SHA-1 is for, to prove to the Romney team that the theft of the tax returns is real. The scammer would never have needed to post his letter publicly. Simply a private letter to Romney containing the SHA-256 hash codes of every file involved would probably have been enough to force Romney to pay $1M. God only knows just how much of that sort of blackmail actually goes on.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    274. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could be simpler?

      The other guy is an idiot. Can't vote for him either. I just can't.

    275. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      When was this the case with the IRS? If everyone's income tax is public, then their income is public. So no with one source of income had a private salary?

    276. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jonhainer · · Score: 1

      What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN?

      The Rapture.

      I believe that is projected to happen on the exact same day as the end of the Mayan calendar.

    277. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      What is a tax return going to do about knowing if someone was bought off? And even if a tax return magically showed that candidate A got money from company B (which wouldn't be in a tax return anyway), how do you know that will influence candidate A?

      Personally, I think the Presidency is the pinnacle. Once you are there, you can forget about money. You are set for life and have nothing greater to strive for. Why abandon your principles because of someone else's choice to give you money?

    278. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see what you are saying, that makes sense.

    279. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Learn math. Please.

      If you earn X, and get taxed T1, and then invest the remainder. And then the remainder makes interest (gain) I, and then that gain gets taxed T2.

      MOOLAH = X * (1-T1) + (X * (1-T1) * I) * (1-T2)

      The second part of the formula (after the plus sign) is related to investments. Do you see T1 and T2 in there? I thought so.

    280. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      They have less to invest because of the original tax. Therefore the gains were less than they should have been. Less by exactly the amount of tax they were already assessed. That is why it is called a "double tax".

      The short term gains are still capital gains tax. They are just taxed at your income tax bracket, instead of the reduced 15% rate that long term gains see.

    281. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      If you weren't taxed the original $300K, then you would have invested $500K. You would have then turned that into $2.5M (400% gain, like you stated). So then your gain would have been $2M. So the gain was taxed. $1.2M in lost revenue.

    282. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The first three digits are location code, and some combinations are reserved, so that means any given location has less than 100,000 possible SSNs, even without the location codes 465,000,000 issued so far,and 999,999,999 possible, means that unless they start using alphameric instead of straight numeric there's a end-of-uniqueness coming. As it is there are around 18 million valid SSNs used by more than one person.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    283. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Your statement flies in the face of reality. If he is an American citizen, and nothing more, just like you, then why does he and his family have Secret Service protection and why are my tax dollars paying for it?

      If they really do have his returns and they release them to the public like every other Presidential candidate in the last half century has done, they're diong a public service.

      If they're looking for extortion money or a ransom, then they're criminals.

    284. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sure showed the libtards how dumb they are with that completely fabricated example. Yeah, we all hate plumbers, and every suggested tax we support is aimed squarely at that edge case you describe.

      Your problem is that you probably fancy yourself to be in (or have a chance to be in) the 1%, but in reality you have no fucking clue what the 1% really is.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    285. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Straif · · Score: 1

      Capital gains differs from earned income in that earned income is only taxed once, when paid to the earner while every dollar of capital gains is taxed at two different points (leaving far less than a dollar in thee end).

      Salary, for example is only taxed when paid to an employee and at that employees personal tax rate. The company pays no taxes on that money as to them it is an expense and not profit.
      Capital gains, on the other hand, is paid from corporate profits so is taxed once at the corporate rate and then at the capital gains rate when paid to investors.

      So while the same entity is not taxed twice, the same money is.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    286. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      You make some good points, but you lose me on the "Romney has nothing to hide" argument. I admit it could be true, but it seems unlikely. Even members of the Republican Party in the media have said as much. He has decided to take body shots from Obama on the issue. Since it could theoretically cost him the election, it seems unlikely that he would do so on a matter of principle. In fact, I would argue that if he really has nothing to hide and he is doing this on principle alone, his judgement is so flawed that he is unqualified to be president. Imagine the following hypothetical statement from an upcoming debate:

      Obama: ... So certainly we need to pay attention very carefully to what China is doing in regards to their continuous military buildups, which seem to be at odds for a nation that claims to be acting only in peaceful interests. And you know, we need a president who has the strength of character to stand up to the Chinese. I have that strength of character and I showed it by releasing 10 years of tax returns, whereas my opponent clearly has something to hide by refusing to release anything but the last 2 years. I know that a man with something to hide from the American people isn't the guy I want handling China.

      It seems logical to conclude that whatever Romeny is hiding, it is so very bad that he and his staff are convinced that he cannot win the election if it becomes known. He would rather suffer innuendoes over it as long as it remains a secret. It's kind of like a boxer who insists that he doesn't have a glass jaw but he takes body shot after body shot while he covers up his jaw.

    287. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      As a major presidential candidate, he should have less right to privacy than Joe User.

      You either have a right or you don't have a right; when the Government stops treating your rights as a qualitative thing and start treating them as a quantitative thing we're all in trouble.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    288. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Verification of the PUBLIC data means nothing. Marriages, property transfers, etc are a matter of public record. Anybody can go down to the courthouse and see who married who or what property they bought. It might take you a while to find something to do with Mitt Romney, but eventually you find something. So you put in your fake document that on 'Feb 3, 2008, 100 acres of property was purchased for x dollars in y.' Then you put in the same document that on 'Dec 15, 2008, $10000 was put in tax-deductible account z'.

      You release said document. Reporter goes to the courthouse and finds that indeed Romney did buy 100 acres of property for x dollars. How in hell does that possibly 'prove' that the document is authentic, and that he did claim to put $10000 in a tax-deductible account? It doesn't. Not one bit. And since that is a private transaction, nobody is going to confirm or deny it.

    289. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Taking out the loan would have no impact on your stock obligation from recieving the stock

    290. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with Bitcoins, but I was wondering where is the government/RNC/Romneys going to get $1M in Bitcoins? They're going to have to buy them somewhere. Seems like this could be a setup for a scam:
      1. Steal or otherwise illegally obtain large amount of Bitcoin.
      2a. Convert to untraceable Bitcoin (as described in other comment below).
      2b. "Anonymously" blackmail someone for large amount of Bitcoin.
      2c. Offer to sell them Bitcoin to pay off blackmail.
      3. Profit! You've used the govt. to launder stolen/fraudulent Bitcoin to cash.

      If they're smart, they'll never even touch the account the Bitcoins were transferred to.
      I suspect there's more holes in this than a Republican speech after fact-checking. Anyone with more knowledge of Bitcoin care to comment?

    291. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like this poor guy here: http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/08/8687299-whats-it-like-to-share-your-ssn-with-50-people-follow-a-victims-struggle?lite

    292. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He has Secret Service protection because he is a candidate for president. That has nothing to do with his status as 'just a citizen'. Or do you think that anyone who receives benefits of you tax dollars (teachers, police, firemen, town clerk, etc) becomes something other than a citizen and therefore forfeits their rights?

      It is interesting how you think involuntary violation of someone else's rights can be dressed up as 'a public service'. I hope you keep that in mind when it happens to you.

    293. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      So, yes, I'd move my money to where I could get a better return - say investment in foreign companies overseas where the tax rate is less.

      Ah, the old "race to the bottom" argument. Laws could trivially be set up such that expatriating money cannot evade taxes. In fact, there are some laws, but the loopholes could be plugged.

      Having more of the money siphoned to the government does not grow the economy, it shrinks it.

      It depends on what the government does with the money, how much spare investment capital there is, the desired saving rates of people, and numerous other factors.

      Government cannot grow the economy, only business can. Government can be of assistance (as well as be a hindrance)

      I don't follow your distinction. But Government can definately grow the economy. See, Interstate Highway System.

      [Government] is not in the driver's seat and not in complete control.

      The first and most important role of government is to be the final authority on stuff. Who owns what? What can you do? Who has the authority to use lethal force? etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    294. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, this is completely different from the other "distractions." Tax policy is one of the fundamental issues in the election. Romney's plan calls for closing many of the tax loopholes used by the wealthy to avoid taxes (he wants to be revenue neutral while reducing tax rates). But he won't say which loopholes he wants to close. "Loophole" is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder; they're generally unintended - but legal - consequences of tax law. I want to know what Romney considers to be a loophole.

      It is clear, from the returns that he's released, that Romney takes an aggressive approach to deductions (for example, in classifying much of his income as capital gains - see this blog). It's entirely reasonable to ask if Romney thinks that the deductions he has taken are things he thinks are good for the United States (i.e. not loopholes) or are things he'd like to eliminate. Because of the complexity of his income (and carryovers from prior years), you really can't tell what he was doing in 2010 without also seeing his 2009 return.

    295. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by aurum42 · · Score: 1

      As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).

      Hmm, where do you get the negative interest rate for 10 year T-bonds? http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield has them at 1.6% today. Or are you factoring in inflation?

      --
      "The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
    296. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt.

      Which is highly unusual, when compared to the history of other large and/or economically powerful nations. However the factors that created that uniqueness (Federated government / Monroe Doctrine / Manifest Destiny / American Century / etc) have greatly diminished in relevance.

      Just like individuals and corporations, major governments can and do go bankrupt. It doesn't require anarchy, just fiscal irresponsibility and/or bad luck. The US Government is in fact headed for bankruptcy if deficit spending is not curtailed. It may have the largest credit line that ever existed, but "largest" is not "unlimited", and past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.

    297. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An american citizen who's trying to get us to all believe he deserves to work for and run the country.

      If he's got nothing to hide. There's nothing to worry about.

      Same thing they've been telling the rest of us as they spy on us and strip our privacy rights.

      Now unless he's going to come out as mister privacy president and actually DO something about all that.... Meh... Fuckit.

      Lets see what he was hiding!

    298. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Bryansix · · Score: 2

      Right except buying a ticket to fly somewhere and showing up to your flight on time is what qualifies you as a suspected terrorist.

    299. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      If the tax returns are fake, then they don't influence the election. If they are real, they only influence the election by giving voters more information on which to vote.

      If the tax returns are real, they selectively give the voters more information. Imagine that both sides' tax returns are equally bad, but only one side is blackmailed. The result would be a benefit for the other side. Although it's truthful information about misdeeds, it is truthful information about misdeeds that is selectively released for one side, which falsely makes that side look worse.

      And this doesn't even consider the possibility that the returns are fake, but they influence the election anyway.

    300. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      It's not about the impact to the victim, it's about the impact to society. Blackmailing someone to change the result of the election is far worse than blackmailing someone just to get some cash.

    301. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by LanMan04 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where are your messiah's income tax returns

      12 years worth, for both Obama and Biden:

      http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

      Your move.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    302. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a double-tax because the income that created the gain was already taxed once. To then tax the gain is to tax the original asset or appreciation of the original asset a second time. That's from the perspective of the investor. From the perspective of the business, their income is taxed and then the return paid to investors is taxed again. It's a double-tax from both perspectives.

      Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate for good reason. Many, including myself, feel there should be no capital gains taxes. With the double-taxation issue aside, it makes no sense to discourage job creation and economic growth. Also, there's already risk enough that the original investment could be lost, the added discouragement of more taxes adds insult to injury.

      If investments, whether from personal savings, loan, or capital investment, isn't necessary to create businesses and the jobs at those business, how do you think buildings, equipment, and personnel are acquired to run the business? The answer is investment. I can't begin to fathom your warped understanding of finance and economics -- classic liberal.

    303. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      If he wants to rule over the rest of us, his privacy should go out the window.

      He doesn't want to rule over you. He just wants to be president.

      Now I want to rule over you. An I don't mean in that representative election crap. I mean rule over as in with an iron fist. I think I'd be damn good at it too, I've actually read the evil overlord list.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    304. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So what? That's true of everyone - if you have a savings account you pay taxes on 100% of the interest despite the fact that you already paid tax on the initial income that went into the account, and thus have that percentage less in earned interest.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    305. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Hmm, where do you get the negative interest rate for 10 year T-bonds?

      As existing bonds mature they are being rolled over into new ones with much lower (but still nominally positive) yields.

      This has a very large effect on the NPV of the trust fund.

    306. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that the US is still in the recovery process from a massive recession, that requires increased spending to kickstart the economy.

      The other factor is that sovereign debt is measured against the GDP so as long as the debt grows slower than the economy plus inflation the country's debt burden actually decreases. In absolute terms the US debt may be at an all time high but when you include the decreasing value of money over time it's actually not too far out of line (e.g. 1950's US dollars are worth significantly more than 2012's).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    307. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't have anything against investments as such. I just don't see why people living, essentially, off the rent of their capital (which they often didn't even earn themselves in the first place) should get a free ride. Fine, let them invest and make profit off it. But it shouldn't be taxed any lower than honest to God sweat of the brow compensation.

      You neo-cons talk too much about 'creating jobs', and don't realize that this is a two-way road - there also need to be people to actually do all those jobs. And, arguably, those who do are more important than those who 'create' (the latter essentially being doublespeak for 'rent out access to their capital'), so the economy should be centered on them, not the other way around.

    308. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you don't think a crime done for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election for the POTUS is more serious than one that is done just to annoy someone or for financial gain? By that logic the entire Watergate scandal should never have been prosecuted - after all, it was just a simple office burglary.

      No, there's no evidence the crime was done for the purpose of influencing the election. The fact that this data could influence the election is what gives the data value. Every time Romney refuses the release his tax records, the value goes up. Eventually the value of the data reaches a level where it's greater than the risk in stealing it. Pentagon secrets are also worth a lot, but the risk is higher too. Obama's tax returns are the same risk, but no value. It's economics, not politics.

    309. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure his definition of a loophole even matters, even with a very generous assumption there the numbers just won't match up without a tax hike on the middle and possibly lower classes.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    310. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      They do, Election Laws require the last 5 years be released, and they were. Obama took it upon himself to release more and challenged Romney to follow suit and Romney declined.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    311. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you, but I do think it is a serious issue.

      Releasing tax returns is just a show of good faith and trust. Nobody cares how much Bill Clinton bought/sold a boat for in 1986. If Mr. Romney decides to forgo that, then that is his choice, but I think it shows a serious misjudgement. He thinks the public knowing that he made 10 million dollars, instead of only 5 million dollars, or used accounting trick "x" to lower his tax bill in 2002 will get people riled up. But I don't really give a damn about his finances, or legal loopholes he may have jumped through. I expect most people don't. On this type of issue, people are generally forgiving as long as it appears everything is more or less on the up-and-up, and no laws were openly flaunted.

      The nation isn't going to be shocked to find out he made millions of dollars each year, or may have paid less tax (by %) than most. We already know that. The issue is that, while he is asking the people for unparalleled power, he doesn't trust the people enough to look at them all in the eye and say, "Here is who I am. You should know everything about me before you entrust this power in me. I may be wealthy, but I am an upstanding citizen just like you." If he gets criticized for paying too little in tax, he can just say "I followed the same rules as you, and came out ahead. What you don't like is the ruleset. I'm a politician, we can talk about that."

      He refuses to do that. It's his right, but I do think it is a major flaw.

    312. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by khallow · · Score: 1

      1) At one time in the US, tax returns were public information. When the IRS was new, everyone's info was published to show that everyone paid their share. I'm not saying we need to force people back to this precedent, but just saying that there is a a precedent.

      Keep in mind that this was during the reign of one of the least democratically inclined presidents in US history, Woodrow Wilson. It's the kind of precedent we should be trying to prevent from ever happening again.

    313. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To have your income taxed a second time, is far from a free ride -- once is enough. If you can grow that income in the form of an appreciable asset or investment, the government shouldn't tax you again for your efforts. Your reference about the initial capital not being earned by a given investor is irrelevant, as someone earned the capital and taxes were collected on it at some point in the past regardless. If someone inherited money or was given it by someone else, good for them.

      To be a job creator is a job in itself. Whether you are investing in your own company or someone else's, it takes hard work and research to know where and when to invest. Job creators and those doing the jobs are all necessary. Who is more important is reflected by compensation, which is determined by skill and demand.

      The economy should be centered, naturally, on those who have the skills to provide the goods and services the people demand. Government's place in the economy should be limited to keeping it safe and free, not determining outcomes. Any additional government influence injects unnecessary inefficiencies that we all pay for in the form of a depressed economy -- thus, our current situation.

    314. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I second Wonko's assertion here. Look at US debt owed to the public as a fraction of GDP. It's gone up a lot in the last few years mostly under Obama.

    315. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that the US is still in the recovery process from a massive recession, that requires increased spending to kickstart the economy.

      And how many more years shall it remain in that "process"? Increased spending by government doesn't mean that any economies are getting kickstarted. That's because other parts of the economy are losing spending power as a result. It's worth noting that an alternate strategy, "do nothing" might have a somewhat deeper trough, but the economy would be firing up by now.

    316. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romney sold have just released his returns like everyone else.

      Well, I don't know about you, but I have not released my tax returns.

      And you also won't get elected ;)

    317. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Sure it's not like we have a SEAL team 9 sitting on the tarmac with rotors turning waiting for a mission is a go to assassinate those terrorist who'd blackmail a potential POTUS.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    318. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to every (non-fraudulent) investment prospectus: Past performance does NOT guarantee future outcome.

      The ability of a government to always pay its debts is not impressive when that government can print its own money.

    319. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you can grow that income in the form of an appreciable asset or investment, the government shouldn't tax you again for your efforts.

      And why not? If I invest my time and effort in form of labor to grow my wealth, this gets taxed as income. Why should investing money be any different? The original capital is not taxed, only the gain is taxed, no matter how it is obtained. That is the only fair way to do these things.

      To be a job creator is a job in itself. Whether you are investing in your own company or someone else's, it takes hard work and research to know where and when to invest.

      It's not always true. I know what you mean, my mom ran her own business for 20 years. Thing is, it's generally less true the higher you go. Most small-medium business owners work their asses off, at least based on the anecdotal sample of those I know.

      But then you get the whole other category of people who pretty much do nothing, and earn money by providing money (or capital) they already have to people who need it. They don't even need to make any hard decisions there since they can hire people who do that - it may not be as efficient as running things yourself, but with large enough initial capital you still get plenty. If you look at the big picture, those people don't really contribute anything useful to the society as a whole. Their sole function is to aggregate wealth, and then rent out bits of that wealth to people who actually can do something useful with it (I don't mean just workers here, but also those small business owners taking credits etc). They neither create jobs, nor manage production, nor directly generate wealth. They strictly leech off the wealth generated by all other actors, and it's only possible because they control the vast amount of capital, without which the wealth producers cannot work at all, or at least cannot be as efficient. And if you look at how much they leech, it's often far more than all those others - who generate the wealth in the first place - get for themselves.

      The economy should be centered, naturally, on those who have the skills to provide the goods and services the people demand. Government's place in the economy should be limited to keeping it safe and free, not determining outcomes.

      Taxing income and capital gains differently is, in fact, a pretty blunt form of "statist" socioeconomic engineering. Heck, you said so yourself when you admitted that it's there to "encourage investments" - this presupposes that you value investments more than labor, since you're willing to tax labor more.

      Any additional government influence injects unnecessary inefficiencies that we all pay for in the form of a depressed economy -- thus, our current situation.

      If by "our current situation" you mean US, then that's a failure of underregulation, not of overregulation - the repeal of Glass-Steagall etc.

    320. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      no it definitely will have something to do with Uranus.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    321. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.

      I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am sick of this extremism partisan crap. Where we actually celebrate politically motivated criminals who brake the law that causes something to favor our political stance.

      I wouldn't expect to see anything much different than the next super rich guy's tax filings, but his own father's actions kind of make you wonder about the whole thing.
      http://theimpolitic.blogspot.com/2012/07/about-that-george-romney-quote.html

    322. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should investing money be any different?

      Like I said, because the income used to make the investment has already been taxed. Appreciation of the already taxed asset should not be taxed again.

      They don't even need to make any hard decisions there since they can hire people who do that . . .

      Hiring skilled people requires skill to know what to look for.

      They neither create jobs, nor manage production, nor directly generate wealth. They strictly leech off the wealth generated by all other actors . . .

      Wrong. They create jobs indirectly via their researched investment, whether they hire someone to make the investment or make it themselves directly. Their loaning capital to a needy business is indeed a service. Money doesn't grow on trees -- it's earned and then invested. You've heard of banks haven't you?

      Regarding our current situation, while repeal of Glass-Steagall may have accelerated the housing crisis, it was loose credit and lending standards fostered by government regulation and influence in the housing market that was most responsible for its boom and bust.

    323. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by wavedeform · · Score: 1

      1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win.

      The only way to prove they are not real is to release the real ones, or at least have some trusted third party review both. Of course this approach completely breaks down if they are real. And further, I don't know what a trusted third party would look like.

    324. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Um...the whole Sarah Palin thing was white collar, vigilante justice--over white collar, malfeasance of office. Watergate was burglary which itself is enough a crime for the police to general investigate. The same holds true for blackmail. While I'd certainly support the whole investigating of the Romney tax blackmailers and the Watergate break-in, the situation with Sarah Palin was quite different as it seemed pretty clear the FBI was, on the one hand, unwilling to launch and push on the DOJ to prosecute Palin in whatever capacity they could--which would surely expose a lot of the "dirty laundry" and influence the election--while, on the other hand, being quite willing to investigate and push on the DOJ to prosecute a person who exposed a lot of the "dirty laundry" and, hence, presumably influenced the election. I mean, at least in that instance, doesn't it seem very clear that justice was the last thing on the mind of the FBI or DOJ?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    325. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by melikamp · · Score: 1

      If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win.

      But if the copies are true, then in saying that he would be lying to the public. So we'll know whether it's a bluff soon enough. Everyone should have the right to privacy, even Romney, and he should have the right to keep his returns private. But privacy is a funny thing: the more famous one is, the more expensive it is to protect it. Famous people cannot expect the taxpayer to foot an infinite bill to protect their privacy. They must understand that the society can only offer them a trade-off between privacy on one hand and fame and fortune on the other.

      Just like with all leaks, once it's out, it's not a private info anymore. If this thing is true, then I can't wait to see it :)

    326. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      These are fears , not facts, and certainly not "math"

    327. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      Ideology again. Other countries tried "do nothing" Ireland and Britain for example. We're blowing them away. Japan "did nothing" for a decade and almost saw total economic collapse. Fear and money do NOT travel well together. Research and experience show that investing in kick starting the economy works and has lasting effects.

    328. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mitt's entire campaign is centered on his promotion of his business success and how we must cut funding because we don't collect enough taxes to pay for our basic needs.

      His taxes are central to supporting what he says, if his taxes show that he abused tax shelters and paid an incredibly low tax rate while using business tactics he claims to oppose, it would show that he is a lying sack of crap.

      Romney's taxes are far from the non-issue that Obama's birth certificate is.

    329. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by outsourcing jobs to China

      He off-shored jobs to China. Big difference. (Hoping someone sees the sarcasm)

    330. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Other countries tried "do nothing" Ireland and Britain for example.

      Perhaps you need some assistance on what "do nothing" means. Do nothing would mean that they let banks fail hard. That didn't happen. Instead, they compromised the economic positions of their countries. And that's why they're currently not doing well. For example, Ireland's publicly held debt went from under 30% in 2007 to around 100% in 2012. The UK's was less dramatic, but it still went from 45% to around 80%.

      You might recall saying that debt only mattered as a percentage of GDP, right? Well, there's the numbers.

      Japan "did nothing" for a decade and almost saw total economic collapse.

      Japan is the poster child for kickstart failure. They borrowed and spent heavily. If kickstarting works, then it should have worked in the Japanese case. Your claim is bizarrely wrong.

      Japanese spending over the last couple of decades increased debt by vast amounts so that currently the country has over 200% debt per GDP.

      What I see here is a very aggressive case of confirmation bias. If a country didn't do well, then you decide after the fact that they must not have tried to kickstart their economy, actual evidence to the contrary be damned.

      And that leads to my point. Kickstarting has a history of failure. And here's why. It takes money from people and businesses that needed it and spends it on less useful and productive applications. The result is a net loss for the economy. The taking can be direct, say by taxes, or indirect, such as by interest payments and inflation.

    331. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      What federal crimes did Palin supposedly commit, and what evidence of this crime even occurring was presented which would trigger an investigation?

    332. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      he is an American citizen

      hiding his wealth in off-shore bank accounts.

    333. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Actually I think that's from Animal Farm.

    334. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That being said, this extortion attempt is really a stroke of luck for him, as it will make the issue toxic and untouchable whereas it would probably have otherwise dogged him clear to election day.

      Most insightful comment in the entire thread.

    335. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Good question. And I don't really have a good answer. The general issue was, Palin as Governor was supposed to engage in official government business "on the record" so that it could be archived. As I understood it, Palin had a personal e-mail account and there were allegations she was using her personal e-mail account to engage in "official government business"; the specific "government business" being potentially discussing things like Troopergate--the supposed firing of a State Trooper because of a messy divorce involving a sister. So, in essence, there was reason to believe it possible that Palin was (a) committing malfeasance of office by using it to engage in personal attacks, (b) obstructing an investigating by hiding otherwise public exchanges--which itself is indirectly another example of malfeasance of office--, and (c) clearly setting the standard that any sort of in-state investigation would be blocked or otherwise obstructed. A few steps later and recognizing that Sarah Palin, as governor, had various dealings with the federal government for things like oil pipelines and roads to nowhere, and you set the stage that an otherwise wholly internal affair might reach the scope of federal consideration of corruption--not unlike Rod Blagojevich.

      Now, all of the above isn't exactly (a) any solid proof of guilt of anything or (b) providing any evidence the FBI actually had any substantial ability to do anything, anyways. The only one who seemly had the clear power and authority to investigate and see Palin potentially prosecuted and convicted was Palin. That left many people with the feeling that the FBI, if it had even some vague jurisdiction, should at least act in whatever limited capacity it could. But, then, it's pretty clear that (a) a Republican president has no interest in attacking/investigating/prosecuting a Republican vice presidential candidate as a matter of point and (b) a Democrat president has no interest in attacking/investinating/prosecuting a Republican vice presidential candidate without either overwhelimg evidence of guilt or a very serious crime being alleged--of which, I can readily imagine Democrats are just as guilty of the same sort of sloppy, intentionally so, record keeping.

      Having said all that, the FBI became involved in the whole hacking incident because it was presumably done across state lines. And the actual punishment against the hacker seemed predominately about the fact that the FBI apparently: (a) talked to the hacker, (b) the hacker then tried to delete potentially incriminating evidence, and (c) the FBI promptly did a proper warrant search and found the "deleted" evidence. Yet for all that and the potential 50 years in jail, he only received a punishment of 1 year + 3 years supervised release. And AFAIK, nothing really has come from Palin's seeming abuses of office, be it a thorough investigation or anything; that's not to say it didn't happen, just that I don't recall anything more than the media vague covering the issue years later with no real mention of any police/FBI/whatever involvement.

      PS - Yea, yea, sorry for going on and on about it. But it just seems rather amazing to me that the one-time hacker crime is so clear cut and results in "swift" (the hacking occurred in 2008, but the court case didn't happen until 2010) justice. Meanwhile, the potentially ongoing crime of intentionally failing to keep records results in...some political banter, some media allegations, and a general forgetfulness on almost everyone's part.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    336. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      So basically, she did not commit and was not accused of committing any federal crime. But she may have violated a state law. And because the US DOJ and FBI did not illegally and unconstitutionally insert themselves into a state matter, it is proper to accuse them and the president of 'not wanting justice'.

      On the other hand, we have someone who did violate a federal law and was properly investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the DOJ, and that is another example of 'not serving justice'.

      Do I have that right?

    337. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      So basically, she did not commit and was not accused of committing any federal crime. But she may have violated a state law. And because the US DOJ and FBI did not illegally and unconstitutionally insert themselves into a state matter, it is proper to accuse them and the president of 'not wanting justice'.

      Well, two points. One, the US DOJ and FBI *regularly* insert themselves into state matters, damn the constitutionality of it. Look no further than a comparison of the treatment of Sue Schmitz and Sarah Palin, based on the flimsy excuses that there might have been federal funds involved and the federal postal service might have been used--the former an interesting point because Alaska has a net funding from the federal government (ie, the state as a whole gets more federal funds than federal taxes its citizens pays in) and the latter interesting because I presume Yahoo being an out-of-state business would inherently grant interstate commerce consideration. Of course, that's the tip of the iceberg of federal involvement on a questionable basis, and both Republican and Democrat administrations have shown a willingness to interfere in state business (Terri Schiavo comes to mind), even if it's just a bully pulpit position. That leads to point two, even if the US DOJ and FBI had zero constitutionality to do anything from a legal perspective, the President of the US could certainly speak up and against seeming graft, corruption, nepotism, or whatever other bad behavior is observed, especially in a would-be VP.

      On the other hand, we have someone who did violate a federal law and was properly investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the DOJ, and that is another example of 'not serving justice'.

      How many people are properly investigated by the FBI and prosecuted by the DOJ over hacking one or more email account? Again, the point isn't that the hacker did something illegal--they certainly did and it was justifiably in itself to prosecute them. It's that it's "not serving justice" when the FBI is so very selective on investigating criminals and the DOJ is very selective on enforcing the laws. It seems more about "setting an example". You can hack into thousands of email accounts or post millions of passwords, and the FBI either can't (which seems hard, but not impossible, to believe) or won't put in the effort to track and seek prosecuting those responsible successfully, except with rare exception. Now, perhaps I'm wrong and the FBI's abilities are really so woefully incapable of tracking most such breaches, either because the hackers involved are wise enough to take the necessary steps to be saved from prosecution or because the FBI simply lacks the funds/expertise over something which they'll likely take a report on but leave it as rather low priority realizing that without a good, hot lead it's not likely worth the effort--ie, it's just unlikely to lead to a successful prosecution. Or maybe the FBI really does a stellar job at investigation and the DOJ is the one who is unwilling or incapable of a successful prosecution--either for a lack of prestige or that the evidence is seen as too weak, even though it's the best detective work anyone could reasonable do. There doesn't seem to be much sign of that, though, especially when it comes to politics as a general point. Then again, that could just be that politicians are really good at covering their tracks. :/

      Then again, it could be the general point that I clearly have biases. And one my main biases is the idea that most people have an agenda. And I presume the agenda of the FBI and DOJ is to seek justice of a sort but their focus tends to be on things they feel threaten the social order of things. Ie, they'll certain go out of their way to try to track criminals when there's a good bit of social unrest about the harm they're causing (the whole PSN

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    338. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not, he's on the side forcing us to lose our privacy!

    339. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      Thanks. What I was figuring with the 10% loss was that you would need to find $100K to pay it back, but you had already saved some $150K on taxes, so you are still ahead on the game. Wouldn't it make more sense for the book value of the compensation to be "earned income" in the year you received it, and the "investment income" be just the difference between that and market value when you sell it?

    340. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      One of the issues here is that when the crime happens to a regular person, different police are involved. When it is done in an attempt to influence a national election, the secrete service is involved.

      It's literally the difference between a crime happening in a one horse town that has to use the already overly extended county sheriff verses the big city with multiple divisions and their own crime lab. Different jurisdictions and different policing agencies with different resources at hand because the crimes are different. Now suppose this crime is a kidnapping that crossed the state lines and all the sudden another agency (FBI) gets involved with even different man power and resources.

      Now, there might be a valid case when some celebrity and an ordinary crime is involved and they are treated better then others. But this isn't really one even though it seems like it.

    341. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by dewatf · · Score: 1

      In what countries are tax returns public information?
      The US is the only country where politicians are forced to turn over tax return details in order to run for election. In any other country that would laughed at and regarded as a serious breach of individual privacy.

      The SSN may not have been intended to be secret, but it also comes with no security protections other than DOB which can be found on most facebook accounts.
      So you only security is to keep it as private a possible.

    342. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by will_die · · Score: 1

      That includes his years in the white house, when we have an initial canidate, like Romney is now, he did not have that many released.

    343. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short term gains (one year or less) is taxed as normal income.

      the purpose of cap gains is to encourage people to invest. Money under a mattress doesn't help anyone.

      If the market returns 8% in a year, and inflation is 2% and if you have a 35% tax rate, then that 8% market return after taxes and inflation, is really worth just 2%. And that is in a good year.

      And if the market ends up 20% lower one out of 10 years (black monday, 9/11, 2008 meltdown), then the odds are that the 2% over a 5 years span is negative. And thus it's not really worth putting your money back into the market.

      If cap gains are 15%, then things barely go positive.

    344. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      They're asking for one million bitcoins. It is debatable whether this counts as asking for money any more than asking for a thousand dollars in Monopoly money.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    345. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Uranuscrats

      Certainly not! Not In My Anus!

    346. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there is absolutely no mechanism in any of the clients to facilitate this. In fact, it would be trivially easy for someone to spread those coins to new accounts, and no way to tell whether any of those moves were him, or the ones going to someone else. There are several ways to make such trails go pretty cold.

    347. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I always find comparing someone to their parents...
      My political views differ greatly then may parent, my sister even more so. All of us are very different people.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    348. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      In what countries are tax returns public information?

      The Scandinavian countries, at least. Probably many others.
      Checking 2009, I see that the prime minister of Norway then had income of ~USD 220,000, zero in capital, and paid ~USD 97,000 in taxes.
      The candidate from the conservative opposition had income of ~USD 175,000, ~USD 99,000 in capital, and paid ~USD 75,000 in taxes.
      (The lower tax is partly because taxes are progressive, so the rate will be higher the more you earn, and also because certain investments can give tax deductions.)

      Of course, these are the overall numbers - individual private details like which charities were donated to or where people hold bank accounts are not public. But it's still enough for the public to get an overall picture, especially if comparing year by year over time.

    349. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/

      Your move.

      No.... where are his secret tax returns... you know, from Kenya?

      And don't give us no silly 1040 EZ paperwork, we want the long form!

    350. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he meant Jesus. WHERE ARE JESUS' TAX RETURNS! Plus I want to see his birth certificate.

    351. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? 12 years of tax returns. He's been in office for 4. So he released 8 years of tax returns prior to him being in office. Romney has only released 2 years of tax returns. Do you consider 8 to be like 2? Or are you just trolling?

    352. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      "The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique."

      And 'they' (we) got that wrong too. If we want it to be unique and we want it to cross multiple generations, then it needs to have more than 9 digits.

    353. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by kmoser · · Score: 1

      In that case, the SSA should be happy to provide you with the unique names and SSNs of every citizen. Just submit a FOIA request and they'll get right on it.

    354. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Ford was unique in that he was never voted IN to office, at least not one in the White House. He was appointed Vice President after Agnew resigned. Appointed by Nixon. Then when Nixon resigned a half-step ahead of facing criminal charges, Ford automatically assumed the Presidency. Which authority he then used to pardon Nixon. While Ford may have been sincere in his professed motivations for the pardon, it doesn't take a conspiracy theory nut to find the idea of a deal offering Ford the presidency in exchange for a pardon plausible. If that is what happened, Ford "paying the price" for his part in the conspiracy by being removed from the office he was given in exchange for the pardon, an office which he may never have been able to obtain any other way, is the lightest slap on the wrist for high-level conspiracy since Grossman's $1 fine.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    355. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      What blackmail. Very slick stunt, pushing Mitt Romney's tax shenanigans back into the public mind scape. All Mitt has to do is release the Tax Returns to the public, which he obviously really, really, doesn't want to do, this creates great suspicion about the nature of the returns and how much money Mitt has squirrelled away in tax havens without paying any tax on it. The tax returns obviously have very little blackmail value without evidence about Mitt Romney's tax haven income manipulations and financial statements. Seriously if anyone truly wanted to blackmail Mitt Romney they would do it with his off shore tax haven financial records and threaten to send them to the IRS and leave it up to the IRS to make them public when they arrested Mitt Romney for tax fraud.

      Did they steal Mitt Romney's tax returns, meh, what for, all they needed to do was make the threat public and driven by guilt Mitt would go all silent and pretend it's not happening whilst various three letter agencies would be forced to act because of the implied threat of persons unknown being able to blackmail the potential president of the United States of America with evidence of his criminal behaviour. Blackmail only really works if you keep it secret, you know, just the perpetrators and the victims. Making it all public kind of mucks up the idea.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    356. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it make sense for him to do a lot of dodgy accounting when he was running for the republican nomination in 2008? He obviously has a little more foresight than that. Believe it or not, it does take a lot of foresight to become president.

      More likely he donated a lot of money to causes that he doesn't care for bringing to the spotlight, like he said, charity is a personal issue that shouldn't be paraded as a campaign point.

    357. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by operagost · · Score: 0

      He asked for an extension, you cretin.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    358. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does indeed take a conspiracy nut to come up with that theory. What great prize was the presidency? He inherited a heavily democratic congress, a nation that was a complete mess, and knew full well that the pardon would make a large part of the country hate him. He couldn't get any legislation passed, hell he couldn't even successfully veto legislation. He sacrificed his career for what he thought was for the good of the country, and even many of his friends turned on him. So what was the upside to being president that was so appealing he was willing to suffer all that?

    359. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      What great prize was the presidency?

      I dunno, seems like the worst job ever to me, but there never seems to be a shortage of people that want it. Insisting that the only reason Ford could possibly have wanted the job is out of a benevolent desire to serve his country strikes me as incredibly naive. I'm not saying it's necessarily an incorrect belief, it's just not the only plausible belief. If you believe the possibility of a back room deal is ludicrous based solely on your assumption of Ford's noble motivations, you either know the man personally or are a fool.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    360. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It has been almost 40 years since these events took place. There have been countless investigations (including by Congress). There have been many interviews given and books written by parties involved in and near to the case. And the BEST explanation you (or anyone) can come up with for anyone thinking there 'must have been some back room deal' is ... it's not ludicrous? It IS ludicrous by now. There is no evidence suggesting otherwise, just some kind of article of faith that 'there must have been a deal'.

      Now, having said that, I will grant you the possibility that Ford thought that Nixon leaving office would be best for the country, and told him if he resigned he would be pardoned, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Or maybe Nixon approached Ford and said he would leave office if Nixon would pardon him. Nothing wrong with that either. The alternative would have been Nixon being removed from office, which certainly could not be considered a good thing for the country. And even if Nixon was removed from office, Ford would still get the presidency, and if that was his motive, as you suggest, he would not have to suffer the fallout of issuing the pardon.

      'You resign, I'll pardon you, and the country can move on from this mess' is a perfectly valid and reasonable explanation.

      'You resign, I'll pardon you, and mwuahahah I'LL BE PRESIDENT' is not. Not after all this time, and not when there is nothing in the man's life before or after that that would suggest he would do such a thing. And especially not when, it the absence of such a deal, it is extremely likely that Ford would be president anyway.

    361. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Civil liberties (including privacy rights) should apply to everyone. Alas, there's a common notion that they can be ignored when somebody is "obviously" guilty of something. Of course, that's exactly when we need to be most rigorous about enforcing them. I don't have much use for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, but just as violation of Palin's privacy rights was unacceptable, so are violations of Mitt Romney's.

      That said, I have to point out this irony; the "bad people don't have rights" fallacy is most popular on the far right, where Romney and Palin both draw most of their support.

    362. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      A leaker is somebody like Bradley Manning who makes government secrets public. This is about private secrets, and is a violation of the rights of an individual.

      I don't care for Mitt Romney, but he has every right to keep his tax returns private. Indeed, I applaud him for this, since it's losing him the election!

    363. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      unique names

      What's this confabulation?

    364. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      And 'they' (we) got that wrong too. If we want it to be unique and we want it to cross multiple generations, then it needs to have more than 9 digits.

      Not really. It can easily be extended to 69 times its range simply by using hex instead of decimal. That should last longer than USA will.

    365. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Missed. The. Point. Completely. Typical libtard.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    366. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That person didn't "just make $2M" as you said. It was spread over thirty years. Capitol Gain Taxes at 15%are evil according to Libtards, and yes, he would have to pay 15% on $2M which is exactly where the Libtards are complaining, WANTING to tax that $2M at 70%, 80% or whatever.

      THAT is the point. For one year, this guy is "the 1%" libtards are whining about.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    367. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      thinking there 'must have been some back room deal"

      At no point did I suggest there "must have been some back room deal"; I was very careful to say more than once that Ford quite plausibly could have acted for the exact reasons he publicly stated - to put an end to an ugly mess and allow the nation to move on. I think it was a mistake even so, but not an actual betrayal. My initial post was in response to your assertion that Ford "paid the price" for his rather unpopular pardon of Nixon's (allegedly, most likely, whatever weasel words you prefer) criminal actions by being voted out of office. To reiterate: Ford was never voted INTO the office. He was appointed. The first time the American people were asked, they said "Nope, don't want Ford as President". You stated that you felt that was a sufficient penalty for his acting contrary to what the people wanted. For a duly elected official, that is correct. In this unique situation, where we NEVER had any say in giving him his authority, taking his authority away doesn't rise to any level of penalty at all. Even if everything happened as it appeared on the surface, it smacks of the political elite protecting their cronies b/c they can. If there WAS a backroom deal, it rises to the level of, well, I don't know what the appropriate laws would be, but it would certainly qualify as a monumental betrayal of the American people. Removing him from the office he (possibly, maybe, who knows) essentially stole would, in that case, not even rise to the level of a slap on the wrist. I DON"T KNOW THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. But it isn't at all the preposterous scenario you assert it is. Even given the investigations, who would know other than Ford and Nixon? And they certainly wouldn't tell.

      And even if Nixon was removed from office, Ford would still get the presidency

      Well, yeah. The deal, if there was one, no proof there was, maybe never happened, would have been for the appointment of Ford to Vice President. Once that happened, his Presidency was all but assured, as you note.

      The alternative would have been Nixon being removed from office, which certainly could not be considered a good thing for the country.

      And there's the crux of the matter. Some of us feel that criminals that hold high office should be held MORE accountable than the peons, not less. Allowing a criminal to go unprosecuted because of his political position is a terrible precedent to set - look where we are now in terms of political figures and their lack of accountability. NOT holding Nixon accountable for his crimes furthered the destruction of the American peoples' faith in their leaders that his criminal actions began. You can pretend that Ford's appointment and subsequent pardon of Nixon were in no way a suspicious turn of events, but a lot of people disagreed (at the time, as you say it was 40 years ago). And the distrust of the populace today towards our political leadership is in part due to the legacy that appearance of possible collusion left in the minds of the people.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    368. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN? Or do government officials somehow trump combinatorics?

      SSNs are recycled. They're only unique among the living.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    369. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN? Or do government officials somehow trump combinatorics?

      SSNs are recycled. They're only unique among the living.

      Er... I stand corrected: http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html Q20.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    370. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      But it shouldn't be taxed any lower than honest to God sweat of the brow compensation.

      As A Republican, I 100% agree with you. Personally, I think capital gains should just be merged into income and taxed accordingly. The concept of the $1 CEO salary is stupid and that loophole should be closed. Sadly, neither side cares to deal with these real problems. They'd rather bitch about the proper positioning of a tax bracket (see Obama's dogged determination to indiscriminately fuck over everyone making 250k or more -- which funny enough would do absolutely nothing to the rich assholes using capital gains as a tax dodge)

    371. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      But then you get the whole other category of people who pretty much do nothing, and earn money by providing money (or capital) they already have to people who need it. They don't even need to make any hard decisions there since they can hire people who do that - it may not be as efficient as running things yourself, but with large enough initial capital you still get plenty. If you look at the big picture, those people don't really contribute anything useful to the society as a whole. Their sole function is to aggregate wealth, and then rent out bits of that wealth to people who actually can do something useful with it (I don't mean just workers here, but also those small business owners taking credits etc). They neither create jobs, nor manage production, nor directly generate wealth.

      If they're risking their wealth in the "system", they're creating jobs somewhere. If they withdrew all their wealth from the system and hid it under their mattress, you don't think the economy would see an impact? I'll agree they're certainly "working less" than people farther down the chain of business, but having them be willing to inject their capital into the system and put it as risk is valuable to the US.

    372. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      That edge case is more common than you think in the world of business. keep in mind 9 out of 10 business fail. The ones that succeed aren't always succeeding with ridiculous overflows of spending cash. Many are laden with debt. Many in fact run in the red for years, taking over a decade before making a profit. There's a bit of an exponential effect in business. In the beginning, you tend to be no better than middle class, often even less than middle class, as you try to get your business established. That period could last anywhere from months to years. When you finally "strike it big" and start pulling down the real bucks, that could have occurred after years and years of struggling, and it could have all been done with the intention of "making it worthwhile" from the big payout in the end when you sell the company. It's not all champagne and caviar in business.

    373. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If they're risking their wealth in the "system", they're creating jobs somewhere.

      Not quite. They enable someone else (the guy who runs an actual business, and takes a loan paid out from their money, for example) to create jobs.

      If they withdrew all their wealth from the system and hid it under their mattress, you don't think the economy would see an impact?

      Of course it would, and that's precisely what I mean. For people who hoard capital, the sole useful role that they can do for the society as a whole is to allow others to use that capital to generate more wealth from it. In that mode, the society is fully productive, using its aggregated wealth at its full potential. If they instead keep that capital to themselves (and don't use it, since there's no way a single person can), they're actually harmful to the economy, not just not helpful. It's as if you were sitting on several tons of apples, but let them rot rather than selling them for less that what you want to (which is still far more than what they've cost to produce). Certainly legal, but I think that most people would consider that to be somewhat sociopathic.

      Again, I don't really have a problem with that per se. Just that this activity - hoarding to then live off the rent - should not be incentivized over actual productive work (of any kind - from assembly line worker or CEO). Which is what we currently have in practice.

      And the nice thing about people who live solely off rent on their capital? There's no "John Galt" scenario here. You can raise taxes on them, and what exactly are they going to do if they don't like it? get their money elsewhere? Sure they can, but they require all those productive guys, workers and managers, to loan that money to in order to generate interest for them. And there would be fewer of them in countries where those productive guys don't have their incentives. So such countries may end up with more wealth, but it would be dead wealth, not doing anything useful for them. So I wouldn't worry too much about these guys running away after losing a couple more cents on their dollar. Even if some do so, but there's more productive workers in the economy instead, it still benefits - because those workers will end up generating more wealth using whatever's left as a starting point.

    374. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Before you start questioning other people's intelligence, learn some math. The 1% isn't somebody who owns a business worth a few million. It's the CEO or banker or other high-flyer who earns that much money in a week.

    375. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The fact that the president and republican party were involved was not known until after the arrests were made and the police dug deeper into who was behind it.

      Actually, it was the cover up that implicated Nixon, not the crime, and it was the cover-up that lead to the discovery of the party behind the perpetrators. If the Republicans had just let the guilty swing, there would have been no scandal, and it would be another in the list of unprovable conspiracy theories.

    376. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Have you ever run for president?

    377. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Hey folks,
      I would love to have this citizen offer to reveal his tax returns, and I believe he does not do so because he has something to hide that his opponents would use against his candidacy. However, for whatever reasons, we have laws that protect his tax documents as private and personal within a certain framework laid down by law and mandate (as in "manadatory"). To reveal that private and personal data is wrong, until such time as the mandates and laws are changed. If we begin to take to law into our personal control then we devolve to "fort au main" (power based on physical strength) rather than power and control based in law.

      Now, we can, and probably will, argue ad nauseum about whether those with money have greater power and control over the legal and mandate process (I believe they do and that this hurts the body politic and the body personal and individual) and so Mr Romney, being one of them is more powerful and has more control over our world than you or I, but that doesn't change the problems that occur when we start breaking the laws with the intention of thwarting the wishes of someone in what amounts to a personal vendetta.

      Some will argue that this calls for revolution. I hope not since revolution always and without exception destroys more than it repairs and leaves a nasty stinky mess behind. But everyone is entitled to an opinion.

      Speaking of which, as a son of Virginia, and an alumni of The University, I think of myself as someone who knows a little bit about Mr Jefferson and his ideas that helped form the constitution. Our system of voting was a negotiated solution that came about in the ferment of thought of which Mr Jefferson's idea that "we need a revolution every 25 years" was one of the sparking thoughts. Voting was meant to be "the revolution". For that reason it was, originally, allowed only to educated landholding men who had a lot to lose if they voted the wrong way, or rather in a way that didn't move the country forward and into greater strength and safety.
      This is not to say that we should return to something closer to the original, only that the original was trying to consider the need to keep a ferment of ideas, of change and of a change in leadership in order to avoid the calls for revolution that we hear today. Consideration of how to mandate changes in salary and benefit structures for legislative and executive branch employees and elected officials, together with reform of the electoral process do seem important topics for the next president and legislature, but they are completely under the radar in a world where the top news items have to do with the workout regimen of a VP candidate.

      We need change, more change than anyone is willing to risk right now. Too bad, because most voters woul;d reward the legislature for that change, only their moneybag friends would try to hurt them.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    378. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The problem here is not that the example was unrepresentative. The problem here is that the example was bogus. Somebody who accumulates a few million dollars in personal assets through their own work is certainly not in the top 1% of wealth. That would be somebody's whose disposable income amounts to that much in a week.

    379. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      So, just work it out over a multi-year average or something. Or, the guy could have just paid himself more of a salary so that the business has less in assets and doesn't sell for as much.

      Most people who work for 30 years at $30k/yr don't get to just collect $2M when they're done. They just collect whatever is in social security, or a 401k should they be lucky enough to have one with something in it.

    380. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you could factor an account's private key, then you have access to that account, and that's about it. It won't help you identify them, but you could spend all their money for them.

      The tracing comes in once the blackmailer wants to do something with the bitcoins. If they want cash then they have to go to some exchange, or to some private party. If the government can figure out who THAT account belongs to (probably not hard for an exchange), then they can just "nicely ask" where they sent the check.

    381. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, even if they can't get your IP, your order on Amazon still is traceable. Anybody can see that you sent money from your anonymous account to Amazon's account. So, the FBI can just ask Amazon what that money was used for (they know what account it came from and probably log it), and where the shipment was sent.

      That's the problem with staying anonymous - there are lots of ways to handle money anonymously, but at some point if you want to actually get anything of benefit from the money you need to actually collect it, or buy something with it and have it sent to you, or show up in a store and use that account number (or one traceable to it). It is at that point that you're likely to get caught.

    382. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the FBI just make it known that if anybody accepts one of the ransom bitcoins in a laundering scheme, then they'll be prosecuted for money laundering? So, then allowing one of your accounts to be part of this passing money around game just taints it and gives the FBI a reason to come after you. The block chains still show every wallet that handled the money, and every wallet those wallets came in contact with, and so on. If the FBI just makes it known that they're REALLY interested in people who have anything to do with that money, then it doesn't matter if your relay the money through a billion wallets - nobody will want to have anything to do with any of your billion wallets any longer.

    383. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think it depends. If the Silk Road buyers knew that no exchange/etc would ever accept that money no matter how many transactions it went through, then they wouldn't accept it either. Money only has value if the buyer and seller can agree on that value. The person accepting money has to trust that the next person will accept it from them. If people who receive money tend to get their doors knocked down in the middle of the night, then they will be reluctant to accept the cash themselves, even if they think they're safe, since others will be reluctant to accept it from them.

      The whole goal of people doing criminal activity is to get that money into something untraceable that they can hold onto which isn't incriminating in and of itself. Bitcoins are completely traceable, so it makes it very hard to ever get the taint off. Cash with its serial numbers is also traceable to some extent, but people don't broadcast to the world every time they spend a $20, who they are, who they gave it to, and the serial number on the bill. They do that with bitcoins, granted in a pseudonymous fashion.

    384. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      Well it's not really the problem with going anon, it's the problem with getting your traceable money from crime.

      --
      What?
    385. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How many of "everyone else" has run for President? The answer is, very few.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    386. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How many of "everyone else" has run for President? The answer is, very few.

      When discussing the pool of presidential candidates, "everyone else" is a small number to start with. "everyone else" running for president did, why didn't he?

    387. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The original poster did not say "everyone else running for president", they said "everyone else". I am one of "everyone else". I have not released my tax returns, neither has anyone else that I personally know. Therefore, "everyone else" have not released their tax returns

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    388. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "Context" Look it up.

    389. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      If this happens, the Obama campaign will be blamed. And rightfully so, since it has made such a big deal over those tax returns.

    390. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      If Romney were to ask for your tax returns he would have it in less than five minutes. I wonder, if he pays up it's like saying 'guilty' :)

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    391. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i agree, blackmail is blackmail ... now if they were to just post it like a good prononymous pro would ... that would be something different , i got no problem being open about my tax returns ... why would romney have them ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    392. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Leaking info for free might be called civil disobedience. Blackmail is... well, blackmail.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    393. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by jittles · · Score: 1

      Sure but that doesn't show any of their kickbacks and such. And don't tell me that Obama isn't corrupt. 1) He's a politician, 2) He was a politician in Illinois and 3) He's a politician. And I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find even a city counselor who hasn't been offered some "favor" or another in anytown USA. It's sad. You almost never make it past the local level without some sort of corruption.

    394. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      So such countries may end up with more wealth, but it would be dead wealth, not doing anything useful for them. So I wouldn't worry too much about these guys running away after losing a couple more cents on their dollar.

      If they have all the wealth, and via their capital, they're facilitating the guys who hire productive workers, why do you label them "dead wealth"? Would not all the business runners and productive workers "follow the money" to the other country if the rich people were forced out? It takes money to make money...we certainly wouldn't collapse, but it would hurt us more than you're giving it credit for.

    395. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They won't have all the wealth either way, because smart wealth holders will realize that they also need workers to take their wealth and produce more from it. Notice how there are plenty of companies - including new startups - in California, despite it having higher taxes than most other states? Wealth and labor have to seek each other, so it's not a one-sided affair.

      And productive workers won't "follow the money" because, for starters, immigration is not as easy as just buying a plane ticket. It's an expensive and time-consuming process, and you may not even be eligible to begin with. But even if you are, why would you move to a country where your standard of living is several times lower? Again, you'd only do that if you absolutely couldn't find a job here, which implies that every single wealth holder leaves - but that won't happen.

    396. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      The problem here is not that the example was unrepresentative. The problem here is that the example was bogus. Somebody who accumulates a few million dollars in personal assets through their own work is certainly not in the top 1% of wealth. That would be somebody's whose disposable income amounts to that much in a week.

      But that's simply not true. http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/

      "The 99th to 99.5th percentiles largely include physicians, attorneys, upper middle management, and small business people who have done well."

      "It is true that, using the Federal Reserve figures, almost half of the top 1% of wealth made less than $500,000 in income and 5 out 6 of the top 1% of wealth made less than $1,000,000 in income."

      I feel like you're thinking of the top .1%. I believe that is the "do-nothing" wealth category you complain about.

    397. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, I stand corrected. . However, the more subtle problem of wealth imbalance remains, even if it's not fairly represented by Occupy cliches.

      I should further note that I do not resent entrepreneurs, capitalists, or even trust fund babies who are absurdly wealthy. Having a few people with a lot of disposable income adds a necessary whimiscality to the economy and to the social system. OK, Paris Hilton is a bit of a pain, but there my problem is more her fan club and the media that panders to them.

      I am bugged by people who enrich themselves by gaming the system, often sabotaging the wealth-creating mechanisms of capitalism in the process. Especially when they turn around and use their ill-gotten gains to defend their "right" to game the system. (And dude, many of the arguments you and I have is motivated by the propaganda related to the arguments over those "rights".) Also bugged by rockstar executives who manage to pull down huge compensation packages all out of proportion to their contribution to company success — in some cases when the company isn't even successful.

      Perhaps inconsistent of me not to give rockstar CEOs the same pass I give trust fund babies. I suppose that comes from my having done the here's a pamphlet, good luck scene not once but twice.

    398. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Man you guys jump through some hoops. How about this one: since the money he earned in the first place was taxed, he couldn't invest so much, so he didn't make as many gains, so he'll have to pay less tax now.

    399. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      As another poster put it: there's no point trying to 'incentivise' investment. If I don't invest it I'll put it into a bank (no we're not all hiding money in our mattress, that would only make sense if the tax rate were at least 100%) The bank will then lend it out to someone else who wants to invest it. Either way the money is not sitting stagnant.

    400. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      As another poster put it: there's no point trying to 'incentivise' investment. If I don't invest it I'll put it into a bank

      Maybe you would, I wouldn't. I would find another avenue with a better ROI. Last resort is to convert into gold so inflation isn't robbing you blind.

    401. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      As another poster put it: there's no point trying to 'incentivise' investment.

      And historically it would appear you are both wrong. In the last two reductions of the Capital Gains Tax, it resulted in more revenue for the government ergo it not only 'incentivized' but actually caused more investment that was otherwise not happening in the higher-taxed world.

    402. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to have to pretend to be a wikipedian and ask for a citation for this. Everything I've seen shows that revenue either stays the same, or reduces when the tax rate is dropped.

    403. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I would find another avenue with a better ROI.

      Just to be clear, what does the I in ROI stand for?

    404. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Look, with less than half of the American people paying income taxes the solution is simple - 100% taxation. You send it all in to the government.

      Or....create jobs and raise the standard of living so no one working a full time job lives in poverty?

    405. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Well you can give this a quick read.

      http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html

      Relevant passage here:

      For example, after the 1981 capital gains tax was cut from 28 to 20 percent, real (all figures in this section are 2004 dollars) federal capital gains tax revenues leapt from $29.4 billion in 1981 to $36.6 billion by 1983—a 24 percent increase. After the capital gains tax was cut in 1997, the receipts from capital gains taxes rose from $66.9 billion in 1996 to $114.7 billion by 1999, an increase of more than 71 percent.

    406. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I second Wonko's assertion here.

      Because you also substitute ideology for reality as needed? Calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" is beyond drivel, as it did not make millionaires of the first people to get in the program at the expense of everyone that followed.

      It's gone up a lot in the last few years mostly under Obama.

      Which you know is because of:

      1) The Bush Tax Cuts
      2) Unfunded wars
      3) Economic collapse due a lack of banking regulation

      Obama has of course chosen to continue all of these conservative, Bush era policies, making continued deficits and a probable second collapse his responsibility. If he were just the raging liberal you wingers made him out to be, that wouldn't be the case.

    407. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      That's certainly the other major possibility. And indeed, charity shouldn't be paraded about, nor should most other personal issues. However, discrepancies between what a person says and what they do are very important, as they allow the public to judge whether the words a candidate uses (and any candidate must use many words) describe the actions they'll perform.

      If Romney says he donates to his church per his religion's requirements, and then actually doesn't, or if he says he's anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage but actually donates heavily to GLAD and Planned Parenthood, certain people may decide that he won't keep his word on other things he says.

      To reiterate, personal issues should be private, but public hypocrisy about private issues most certainly should not be private, at least for public, elected officials.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    408. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      And productive workers won't "follow the money" because, for starters, immigration is not as easy as just buying a plane ticket. It's an expensive and time-consuming process, and you may not even be eligible to begin with. But even if you are, why would you move to a country where your standard of living is several times lower?

      That somewhat assumes equivalent "productive workers" couldn't be found in the foreign country. Because that money would be working for them at that point (meaning they would have the venture capital to spawn off new businesses and spool up productive workers, venture capital that we would be losing).

    409. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It assumes that the equivalent productive workers in the same quantities, and in the same environment (which is part of what makes them productive) cannot be found, yes. I think it's a reasonable assumption. Notice how people immigrate in droves from India, China etc to US and other Western countries, not the other way around. That's because they get far more out of being a worker here than they do there. And, generally speaking, the better (and higher paid) they are there, the higher their ability and desire to immigrate.

      Of course, if you lock down immigration tight so that there's no free market for the laborers to shop for jobs, then yeah - people can be kept in countries where they are little more than wage slaves, and all businesses will flock there to use that.

    410. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      I am bugged by people who enrich themselves by gaming the system, often sabotaging the wealth-creating mechanisms of capitalism in the process. Especially when they turn around and use their ill-gotten gains to defend their "right" to game the system. (And dude, many of the arguments you and I have is motivated by the propaganda related to the arguments over those "rights".) Also bugged by rockstar executives who manage to pull down huge compensation packages all out of proportion to their contribution to company success â" in some cases when the company isn't even successful.

      As am I bugged by that, and by the wealth imbalance as well. But it's simply not fair to demonize all business men, or all rich men, just because a few bad apples are in the bunch. I'd rather attack the problem rather than the symptom. And the problem isn't "having money", it's exploiting the system. We need to be surgical with this, not blunt with a tax hammer on everything above "income level X". Plug the holes, reform the tax code. Don't just redistribute the money through any means necessary.

    411. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      But it's simply not fair to demonize all business men, or all rich men, just because a few bad apples are in the bunch.

      Absolutely, positively agree, without any qualification!

      Oh dear, I had to admit you were right about something, now you're saying things I agree with, Scary!

      Plug the holes, reform the tax code. Don't just redistribute the money through any means necessary.

      OMG, I agree with you again! This has to stop!

      Please recall that I'm not an Occupy zealot, even though I made the mistake of conveying my views in the form of a fallacious Occupy cliche.

    412. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The current situation is what's called a liquidity trap, because demand has collapsed and thus incomes are down people are unwilling to spend money and thus demand isn't getting back up (signs of a liquidity trap are, among others, that inflation fails to appear even when the govt is "printing money"). The govt's job here is to interfere and use tax money for investments to break the liquidity trap by creating a boost of demand for a while until the other economic players become willing to buy stuff again, thus kickstarting the demand cycle again. The absolutely wrong path here is trying to recover the losses from the bank bailouts by saving money, England's economy is hitting a second recession right now due to premature austerity.

      Allowing the banking system to collapse would have far more grave consequences since banks are very central to many economic processes (many other businesses require the ability to lend money). Yes, that won't teach them not to gamble but that's also why banks must be regulated: If they fail the damage is far too great. We can't allow them to have the freedom to gamble like this. The whole anti-regulation ideology has stripped all the safety systems away that have been put in place, as a result the whole thing blew up.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    413. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by overmod · · Score: 1

      All Romney has to do is agree that he will show originals of his tax returns at the same table that Obama shows original copies of his birth certificate and college application...

    414. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Please recall that I'm not an Occupy zealot, even though I made the mistake of conveying my views in the form of a fallacious Occupy cliche.

      Fair enough, I made similar mistakes in a different thread with you.

    415. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      If we're both going to admit we're wrong about things, we're going to have to rethink our entire relationship!

    416. Re:Don't worry, Romney... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you scared him off, at least I don't see his comment anywhere...

  2. The real story here is... by DeathToBill · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:The real story here is... by Joce640k · · Score: 1
      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, $1 million worth of something is definitely not worth having.

    3. Re:The real story here is... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.

      Exactly, any self-respecting thief will go straight for lupins, that's a no-brainer.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:The real story here is... by Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, someone banks on them being really untraceable. I'm quite certain they plan to exchange them back to US$ fairly quickly. Meanwhile, bitcoins make a good storage.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they want to see what happens, when he tries to divide by zero.

      "Number of bitcoins needed" = "Amount to pay in USD" / "Value of 1 bitcoin in USD" = 1.000.000 / 0

    6. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One million quatloos!

    7. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm certain the "hackers" are very much aware of how bitcoin works and how difficult it would be to launder $1`000`000 worth. Most likely, they are just posting this hoax for the lulz. If they were serious about trying to convince people that they actually had tax returns they would at least have avoided publishing drafts of this story over a month ago:
      http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/

      If there's any intent at all here it's to get Bitcoin into the news. Could /. mods please just occasionally entertain the idea of a quick Google search before accepting a story.

    8. Re:The real story here is... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      More accurately, you can pay for drugs with them.

      You don't necessarily get drugs.

      That's the lovely thing about unmediated transactions where both parties are fully anonymous.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    9. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you really think bitcoins are worth nothing, you'd happily give me 1 for 1$ no?

    10. Re:The real story here is... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      well if you really think bitcoins are worth nothing, you'd happily give me 1 for 1$ no?

      I'd give you a million for nothing, but I don't have any. Nor can I justify buying any for more than nothing.

      I don't really get why one should even use bitcoin over solidcoin either.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    11. Re:The real story here is... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Guilders! So much cooler than Florins.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:The real story here is... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen the fraud on Silk Road isn't any worse than on Ebay.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to do my blackmailing in WOW gold.

    14. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then transfer them immediately for Shrubbery.

    15. Re:The real story here is... by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 1

      All I can read this blackmail claim in is a Dr. Evil voice: "$1 million bitcoins!!!" *pinkie in mouth*


      *FBI agents look at each other* Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    16. Re:The real story here is... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      And you might inflate the exchange rate as well; if my math is right, there is only $100M in bitcoins in circulation. You could use the event to sell bitcoins in the bump and never touch the "original" money.

    17. Re:The real story here is... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I was going to mod you up, then I tried the link... "Page Not Found The page you requested could not be found."

      Then I googled it and guess what was the first hit? That missing page.

      Then I noticed that all of the links on the first page of results were rougly identical... except one: a Forbes article that included:

      (Author's note: Apparently, some folks are upset that I didn't explicitly state that this original story appeared on a satirical site - though I clearly linked to it in the piece. The point of my piece was to point out that it couldn't possibly be true - not to "debunk" a satire. It was meant to remind folks not to simply share without reading - also in the original story - and not to merely rely on a headline or a sentence in an email for your news. Those of you who stop by the blog regularly get that and I appreciate it. I'm not going to change the original piece but I am going to clarify this in big red letters at the top so that the rest of you can sleep a little better.)

      So it looks like Snopes needs to add this one.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    18. Re:The real story here is... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.

      Exactly, any self-respecting thief will go straight for lupins, that's a no-brainer.

      Pshh. Real financial security is in Quatloos.

    19. Re:The real story here is... by tgd · · Score: 1

      That's like saying "from what I've seen of the violence in Detroit, it isn't any worse than Fallujah"

      It may be true, but I wouldn't go to Fallujah, either.

    20. Re:The real story here is... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      As I understand it there are two big promises of Bitcoin or related technologies:

      1) It's a free-standing currency outside the control of any government or institution and (if/when it stabilizes) its value is very difficult to manipulate. In the case of Bitcoin it was also designed as an inherently deflationary currency - so once the initial hoarders cash out it will be virtually immune to inflation. A brief survey of the games that have been played by governments manipulating their currencies for the benefit of those in power should make it obvious why such a currency could be desirable.

      2) It cuts out the middle-man (banks) for rapid money transfers. Right now if you make a bank transfer you pay a not insignificant fee for the privilege, especially if it's international. Credit card transactions are potentially cheaper but still quite lucrative for the card company. By making rapid transactions essentially free you remove a massive privatized "convenience tax" from the economy, to the benefit of everybody except bankers.

      There's also the semi-anonymous aspect - but as others have pointed out the entire transaction history of every bitcoin since the moment of it's creation is completely public, so any real anonymity depends on money-laundering, which is also made somewhat more difficult by the logs. For now such things can be run outside the reach of the authorities, but if it were to become popular enough that even a few percent of global transactions were conducted in it I'm willing to bet that governments the world over would start cooperating to crack down on it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, a currency that isn't in the shitter ;)

    22. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mr moore mr moore riding through the night...

    23. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, someone banks on them being really untraceable. I'm quite certain they plan to exchange them back to US$ fairly quickly. Meanwhile, bitcoins make a good storage.

      Wouldn't rare stamps be even more practicle if praticality were the object?

    24. Re:The real story here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Bitcoin transactions are public so they are easier to trace than cash.

    25. Re:The real story here is... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Easily identifyable physical objects? Yeah, sure. Please rob a bank or something, you're going to be the easiest catch since the guy who wrote the "hand me all your money" note on the back of his business card.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. bitcoins are traceable by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    idiots

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:bitcoins are traceable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their description of bitcoins was spot-on - untraceable currency used by criminals.

    2. Re:bitcoins are traceable by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      They know they there's no chance Romney will pay up. If he pays up, he likely does more damage to himself than the tax returns ever could.

      The alternative is to say, "leave $1M dollars in unmarked bills under some overpass". They're hardly going to hang around waiting to see if he pays.

    3. Re:bitcoins are traceable by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      That's what they want you to think.

    4. Re:bitcoins are traceable by azalin · · Score: 2

      Very nice turn of events would be, to leak the location of that overpass to the press instead of picking up the money.

    5. Re:bitcoins are traceable by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The addresses the bitcoins are traceable to, on the other hand...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  4. One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    that they take the money and release the information anyway. The rebplutocrats deserve worse than we can imagine.

    1. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      with that vitriol, you wonder why public discourse has been destroyed.

    2. Re:One would hope by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      It was also right on that I'm sure the idiots in the Romney camp, in their little sealed off corporate reality bubbles, probably never heard of bitcoins and, on top of it, need direction in figuring out what they are (go to google).

    3. Re:One would hope by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Most people on the street have never heard of bitcoins - hell, most people in IT have never heard of them. I wouldn't call them idiots for that particular reason (not to say there aren't plenty of others). As it is, I barely have an understanding of exactly how they're supposed to work.

    4. Re:One would hope by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      And what is it going to change?

    5. Re:One would hope by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      What's worth a public discourse based on the under table handling?

      In USSR, you know, we had a proper and organized public discourse. Replace communism with the capitalism and you'd get the GOP's version of it.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    6. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "rebplutocrats"

      What are you 12?

      "deserve worse than we can imagine"

      Really? Do tell. What do we deserve chump?

    7. Re:One would hope by lightknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Possible, but I am thinking this is actually part of a larger ploy.

      Since anyone of even a modicum of technological capability, who actually uses BitCoins, knows that they are somewhat traceable, I wonder why someone would demand such an outlandish sum in them. Let's see here...we have the key words BitCoins, hackers, and all of it tied to a presidential election.

      We all know that for the last several months, the press has been falling over themselves to paint BitCoins in the darkest light possible, playing up every rumoured instanced of malfeasance even remotely tied to them. We also know that the military, for lack of enemies, has recently decided that their next shipment of bread and butter will have to come from the 'cyber-crime' division, and that they are desperate to find a playmate, domestic or otherwise, to justify the purchase orders already signed and dated, in top brass's top drawers. And seeing how the BitCoin community has been relatively effective in educating people with regards to the f*cked up claims the press loves to make, perhaps someone decided to take it to the next level. By launching an attack on a presidential campaign, you are guaranteed coverage in the press, at decibel levels well above the normal white noise; you also guarantee that the attacked opponent will respond with a calculated defence (denial, followed by revenge if / when elected), with the added bonus that since you went after a minor but incredibly irritating election issue (his tax returns, and it is), he will take it personally. If he is elected, he will willingly sign any law that mentions this incident and 'justice'; if he loses, the other guy will do the same, as he doesn't like the idea of what happened to his opponent possibly happening to him or his friends. It's the equivalent of a Morton's fork, where the tech industry is damned if they do, damned if they don't. The military gets paid either way, though they won't be invited to any tech parties for a few years.

      Hackers (unknown enemy, up there with the boogey-man these days, hiding under your bed and in your computer, going to get you), BitCoins (another unknown, a 'competing' currency to the US dollar, so it's 'patriotic' to be against it; plus 'hackers' and drug dealers use it, unlike the US Dollar, so it must be bad), and a presidential election (when politicians make a black list, and begin adding names).

      The best part is, even if the hackers are arrested, we may never get the people behind it all. Sounds a little conspiracy-ish, but it is in the CIA handbook, that you 'groom' someone else to do the dirty work, then get rid of them.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    8. Re:One would hope by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Funny is now Romney needs to buy $1M of bitcoins. With such demand, the bitcoin market would bubble quickly. $20 per 1btc? Sure. Then the blackmailers have to unload $1M in btc and ... the price drops like hell.

    9. Re:One would hope by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      A mere one week ago there was a discussion about how the Republican party was the party of hate, vitriol, and all the rest. This, in a discussion started by someone saying that the entire GOP convention deserved to drown in a hurricane.

      My mind is just boggling right now at the utter hypocrisy.

    10. Re:One would hope by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      If they've never heard of bitcoins that alone is to their credit.

    11. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like political groups made up of individuals with a diversity of beliefs and personalities.

      But remember, that's only true of your own party. Everyone with any sense knows that other party is universally a bunch of hypocrites and dicks. Our idiots should be forgiven and shuffled aside. Theirs are the truest representation of their side's moral bankruptcy and intellectual feebleness.

    12. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that they take the money and release the information anyway.

      Which is why this whole thing reeks of a Watergate style job. No chance of getting real money, even asking for bitcoins is a joke.

    13. Re:One would hope by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im not saying all dems are democrats; Im boggling that someone had the audacity to label an entire party of republicans as the party of hate in a discussion on drowning the entire GOP, and when comments like GPs are what passes for "acceptable" here.

      I have a friend who is a dem delegate of a state, and we manage to get on just fine without calling each other socialists or replutocrats or whatever (though truth be said we're not super close); Im just saddened that so many people on slashdot see fit to throw names around and then call everyone else the problem. I have no doubt that the AC above throws accusations of hate at the republican party.

    14. Re:One would hope by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im not saying all dems are HYPOCRITES

      WHoops. I think "all dems are democrats" is a tautology, and certainly I agree with it.

    15. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your pussy Demonrats (see I can do it too) can't even fill the seats in the stadium to watch dear leader plead for more votes. And like crybabies they slink off to a smaller venue.

      Meanwhile at corruption central we see Democrats committing voter fraud. You get that pussy, your team cheats and lies. Suck it up.

      http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Ark-lawmaker-pleads-guilty-to-election-charge/qjc8PtXwfkC8frDCgwLNrg.cspx

      "LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A Democratic state legislator from east Arkansas, his father and two campaign workers pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy to commit election fraud after federal prosecutors said the lawmaker's campaign bribed absentee voters and destroyed ballots in a special election last year.

      Prosecutors said Democratic Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone acknowledged that they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence absentee votes in the Arkansas District 54 primary, runoff and general elections in 2011. The four were released pending a sentencing hearing."

      Voter fraud requires a special type of scumbag as this is a crime literally against all free men.

    16. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im not saying all dems are democrats

      Im not saying all dems are HYPOCRITES

      Freudian slip?

    17. Re:One would hope by sjames · · Score: 1

      If someone goes around spewing virtiol all over his coworkers for years on end, how many do you suppose will want to throw a party if he gets canned?

    18. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, a reasonable poster with the capacity for intelligent thought outside of the slashdot hive-mind.

      I expect you will soon be banned.

    19. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just adding a little weight to your theory is this link:
      http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/
      Which appears to be an earlier draft of this story (either that or Romney's had is tax returns stolen by Anonymous twice in as many months).

      But I don't know. I'm sure professional journalists and the secret service have a much better idea about what's going on than me.

    20. Re:One would hope by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slashdot logic: Something i like: is being associated with something bad? It must be a false flag attack.

      China is actively working to subvert government it systems? Irrelevant. Cyber-Command will be built on the crumbling remains of bit coin. Srsly?

    21. Re:One would hope by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, because crackers / hackers, in general, break into large accounting firms, and (this is the kicker) instead of quietly modifying the servers to send large payments to an account outside of the country, they steal the tax returns of a presidential candidate, and publicly black-mail him. Because they're the kind of people who would turn down a few tens of millions of dollars (or more) since they are apparently so bad at Math, so they could get a million from a guy who is going to have a bee in his bonnet his entire term (if elected) about the damn incident, oh yeah, and have the Secret Service on his ass (which even for the 31337, isn't something you want unless you really, desperately have absolutely no other choice in the matter). And they certainly don't have an entire culture built around operational security, trusting no one, and keeping things quiet in general.

      Say what you like, but the FBI was watching Hemingway.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    22. Re:One would hope by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " we had a proper and organized public discourse."
      hahaha.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:One would hope by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Took me a moment, then I started looking for the Onion's logo (still satire, but a different site). Oddly enough, the story does bear a superficial resemblance.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    24. Re:One would hope by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      It is much more like a hacker/cracker / stupid child who's been around anon enough to pick up the jargon and think of using pastebin to post stuff and then he just fucking made it up.

    25. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last several months have had zero mentions of "bitcoins" in the press. Only on non-mainstream websites, such as /.

      Most people don't care about bitcoins. They were a novelty when they first came out, something to fill a slow news day with. No one cares. Stop being delusional.

    26. Re:One would hope by Anonymous+Coward5226 · · Score: 1

      Unbelievable, you come everyday repeating lies after lies after lies. Do you get up in the morning and look at yourself in the mirror? I might have missed your sarcasm, if I have, I apologize in advance.

    27. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the actual policies enacted by a heartless, soulless party are equal to one troll posting on a discussion board?

      Way to draw valid parallels.

      My mind is boggling at the depth of your foolishness.

    28. Re:One would hope by shiftless · · Score: 1

      We are 16 trillion in debt thanks to the radical left and capitulation of the RINOs. The people want to see someone in charge who understands what a budget is.

      Is G.W. Bush still available? Maybe we can call him in to deal with these profligate liberal scum.

    29. Re:One would hope by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Yes, because crackers / hackers, in general, break into large accounting firms, and (this is the kicker) instead of quietly modifying the servers to send large payments to an account outside of the country, they steal the tax returns of a presidential candidate, and publicly black-mail him

      Per the summary it was a physical theft.

      The claim was made in a post on the Pastebin site on Sunday that alleged that Romney's federal tax returns were taken from the offices of PriceWaterhouse Coopers in Frankin, Tenn., on August 25 by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    30. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fruitcake.

    31. Re:One would hope by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      When making your tinfoil hat, the shiny side goes out.

    32. Re:One would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dealer wont even take bitcoins!

  5. Romney waived a red flag by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know about the veracity of the claim that came in yesterday, but one of the things that I thought about when Romney started trying to surpress this information was that is was a just about the same thing as waiving a red flag in front of a bull. It's bound to make a "hacker" go for the ultimate crack and get this information (that most of us think should be public anyway) out of the electronic vault and onto the net.

    It also, IMHO, shows that Romney and his band of followers live in a bubble of corporate reality and not in the real world. Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.

    1. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it sounds like a 'hacker' used the 'sneak in and photocopy a physical document' loophole out of a filing cabinet vault, not an electronic one. I know it's naive to expect someone to read the article, but this point is right in the summary.

    2. Re:Romney waived a red flag by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      Apparently the reason hacker was in quotes flew right over your head. If you don't get it I am not going to explain it to you.

    3. Re:Romney waived a red flag by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except there was no electronic vault. As the summary quite clearly states, someone broke/snuck into the building and made copies. I'm not even sure where the term "hacker" comes in here... maybe just because they want to be paid in bitcoins?

      "Romney’s 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied. A package was sent to the PWC on suite 260 with a flash drive containing a copy of the 1040 files, plus copies were sent to the Democratic office in the county and copies were sent to the GOP office in the county at the beginning of the week also containing flash drives with copies of Romney’s tax returns before 2010. A scanned signature image for Mitt Romney from the 1040 forms were scanned and included with the packages, taken from earlier 1040 tax forms gathered and stored on the flash drives."

    4. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hate to be a spelling nazi, but "waived" means something very different from "waved", and you seem to be confused on that point. "Waive" means to give up something you are due or have a right to, e.g. "The CEO waived his bonus in light of the poor performance of the company."

    5. Re:Romney waived a red flag by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting. One of the things I thought when Romney stated he wasn't going to release the information was that he was trying for a rope-a-dope, much like the President did to McCain with the birth certificate issue.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Romney waived a red flag by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So they've already been released?

    7. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.

      I am unaware of any requirement that a presidential candidate reveal his tax return, or his will, or what he had to eat last thursday.

      The IRS gets to look it over, so Im really not clear here what there is to gain anyways; maybe theres some benefit Im unaware of.

    8. Re:Romney waived a red flag by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Broke in? Unlikely. It was probably an inside job.

    9. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may be a sense of losing one's privacy by releasing one's tax records. Is it really appropriate to make such a request? Where is the line? What about opening up one's e-mail contacts to the world? Not the messages, but just the contacts.

      In all fairness, it probably is a distraction. As much as I think Romney can't identify with most Americans, maybe this should just be dropped. Maybe they should discuss the issues.

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not voting for Romney. I'm not planning on voting for Obama either. I'm not totally sure Obama can identify with most people. Listen to them talk about the "middle class" like it's all that there is. I don't buy into the "class system". Instead talk about high-income earners, middle-income earners, and low-income earners, and of course, those totally without any income whatsoever.

      When I say they should discuss the issues, I mean just that. Talk about solutions. There are many different ideas out there, and there can be more than one solution to any given problem. There might not even be a "best" solution.

    10. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      It sounded to me like there wasn't an electronic trace of a hacking break-in, but that someone just social-engineered their way into the accounting office, scanned the 1040s to .pdf, copied them to flash drives and walked out. I haven't RthisFA but another one that I read yesterday made it sound like that was what likely (if anything) happened. However, from most accounts, Romney's 1040s would be hundreds of papers each year, so maybe there was no scanning by the intruder at al, and they just sneakernet the stuff off someone's computer inhouse.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    11. Re:Romney waived a red flag by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      There isn't any requirement and my post didn't state such a thing. However what there IS massive public pressure for the the candidates to release the records. By not releasing the records it really does give the impression that there is something to hide, and by trying to keep information private like that you're bound to have someone take it as a challenge.

      I think that perennial libtard George Will pointed out that Romney must of made a calculation and that keeping the information hidden hurts him less than releasing it. That might or might not be true, but using that shaky, sometimes wrong value called "common sense" it certainly looks true enough. It's bound to make some wayward person with a few overestimated skills want to be a hero.

    12. Re:Romney waived a red flag by medcalf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or for that matter, his college records. As much as I'd like to see those from Obama, he's under no obligation to release them, and it would be just as wrong to release them illegally as it would be to release Romney's tax returns.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    13. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.

      Why? They have Obama's college transcripts and passport as examples. If he can keep those secret, surely Romney's tax returns can be kept under wraps too.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    14. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tomhath · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It isn't so much about keeping things secret as it is about keeping the other side on the defensive. If Romney releases his tax returns the Democrats will demand something else, and something else, ad nauseum. The more you distract from the other party's message the better so Romney put a hard stop on their first silly request.

      If the tax returns are released they won't show anything we don't already know, very much like when Obama finally released his birth certificate. Now if Obama would release his transcripts from college and law school, that would be interesting. He must really be hiding something there...

    15. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I dont think it really matters WHAT is in the tax return TBQH-- maybe youre right that theres something sinister in there, but im sure that even if there were not a huge hullabaloo would be made of SOMETHING. A lunch with business partners labeled as a business expense, a car purchase, the size of his investments... people are happy to make a big deal out of anything regardless of accuracy.

      Id rather stick with the principle "The IRS looks it over and its none of your business", honestly. The media makes everything so sensational these days its sickening; can we just focus on actual politics?

    16. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real odd part (other than the obvious implications to the 2009 foreign bank account reporting amnesty) is that it was George Romney, Mitt's father, who started the tradition of releasing a decade of tax returns back when he was trying to beat Nixon for the Republican nomination in '68.

    17. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Mitt's case, there are 2 popular theories as to what he's hiding: 1) he was paying the Mormon church less tithing than he was supposed to be paying; 2) he was one of the tax cheats that applied for amnesty when the Swiss cooperated with the IRS. Hell, it could even be both.

      For all his faults, George W. Bush even released 13 years of tax returns. He probably had lots of complex business arrangements, but nothing that you wouldn't expect of a typical high net worth individual. If you aren't doing something that would betray the trust of the American people, who are considering making you the most powerful person in the world, you won't be hiding anything.

    18. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "the CEO waved his middle finger at those who said he should waive his bonus in light of the poor performance of the company"

    19. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is actual politics. He's running to be President of the US, not president of the rich old boys network. If he wants to claim that he isn't robbing the poor blind and paying his fair share, then he should be prepared to show that he wasn't defrauding the government of money he owed. Remember that there was a tax amnesty offer during the period of the taxes he refuses to show.

      Who knows it's entirely possible that the returns are clean, but considering that he hasn't shown them when every other candidate going back nearly a hundred years has, yeah, that's suspicious.

    20. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name on Presidential candidate that has ever released college transcripts. Which you can't do because nobody has ever done so and the President is the only person that anybody has demanded do so.

      Whereas every Presidential candidate going back to at least FDR has released those tax records.

    21. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS looks it over and its none of your business

      I agree with this by and large, but this isn't a regular Joe here. You will find this guy has a lot of loopholes employed to circumvent taxes. Most recent (and yet little reported) the Cayman flag flying on his yacht. The returns could POTENTIALLY prove that he doesn't pay ANY taxes. Now how would that look for him? As I said, it isn't any of our business until it becomes our business. Being President definitely becomes my business and I'd rather *not* keep voting in piss poor pre-selected options. If IRS returns can be a filter for such, then I'm all for it. Romney chose this path... his nose should be clean.

    22. Re:Romney waived a red flag by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit! You don't think the Democrat politicians games the same IRS rules like the Republicans in office? Here's a clue for you Micky, every rich man, women, and child does. BECAUSE THEY DO **NOT** DO THEIR OWN TAXES!!! Some other firm does it for them whom specializes in US tax code.

      Both the players and the game suck. But lets start with the common denominator here. Overhaul the US tax system. Go flat tax if we have to. But absolutely nothing will change in behavior with those with disposable income to obfuscate.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    23. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Bigby · · Score: 1

      "most of us think should be public anyway"

      Is this stated in some poll? I don't think anyone should be required to divulge their tax information to anyone for any reason. I would think most of the country feels the same way. Only the diehard Democrats (not all Democrats) are going crazy over this.

    24. Re:Romney waived a red flag by konohitowa · · Score: 0

      Name on [sic] Presidential candidate that has ever released college transcripts...

      G.W. Bush

      Whereas every Presidential candidate going back to at least FDR has released those tax records.

      Not true. Carter was the first. He released two years worth. That's the same as Romney has released (sort of - his 2011 is still in process).

    25. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Whereas every Presidential candidate going back to at least FDR has released those tax records.

      I call bullshit.

      Romney did release his - 2 years worth. The same as Gingrich and 1 year more than Jimmy Carter released as a candidate. Al Gore never released any and although John Kerry released his, all his money came from his wife, and we only got one year of hers. In fact, while FDR released his tax records AFTER he left office, no other candidate did until Richard Nixon. We didn't get any from Hillary Clinton, either.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    26. Re:Romney waived a red flag by geekoid · · Score: 1

      when people find out he pays less taxes then people who actually work for their money, it won't play well to a largest section of Americans.

      "The IRS looks it over and its none of your business"
      I agree..but we are talking about people and tradition. It's hard to change that. I think all the candidates at the same time would have to agree not to release taxes.

      OTOH, there is a solid argument for the citizen to know everything about people running for office.
      hmm

      "we just focus on actual politics?"
      this IS politics. Personally, I would say "can we just stick to policy"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to keep it secret forever. Only until after the election.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    28. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious about this desire to see Obama's college records, and you expressed the interest, so...

      Why in the fuck do you want to snoop through his college records? In what way do you imagine they bear on the man who has *already* been president for 3.5 years, that would influence anyone's decision to vote/not vote for him this year?

      Do you think he did something shady? What? If you think there's some malfeasance to uncover, but you can't express it distinctly, then you're just fishing. And rooting around in his college transcripts is a stupid place to look.

      Or are you just jonesing, now that only the obviously deranged still question his birthplace?

      lol, captcha is "crucify"

    29. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If he wants to claim that he isn't robbing the poor blind and paying his fair share, then he should be prepared to show that he wasn't defrauding the government of money he owed.

      Im going to go out on a limb here and say that the IRS-- particularly one under the control of the opposite party-- is going to be a much better judge of that than a bunch of armchair accountants.

      Or is it your opinion that they are somehow in cahoots?

    30. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You will find this guy has a lot of loopholes employed to circumvent taxes.

      "Loopholes" is political speech for "intentional tax benefits to encourage certain behavior". Is it a tax loophole if they lower their tax burden by donating to goodwill? Or by installing energy efficient windows? What about investing in a retirement account-- is that a tax loophole?

    31. Re:Romney waived a red flag by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because they are claiming to be the same people that hacked into bitcoins trading floor.
      Not that getting these documents was a hack, only that they are hackers. If you see my meaning.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fact that in 2009, the IRS had an amnesty program for people evading taxes by hiding money in unreported overseas bank accounts (after that big debacle with UBS).

      It's a fact that Romney is only revealing his tax returns from 2010 and later.

      It's my opinion that Romney legally took the amnesty in 2009 and has decided that not releasing his returns would be less embarrassing than admitting to evading taxes and then coming clean during an amnesty program. I would like to have the facts here, but they aren't publicly available.

    33. Re:Romney waived a red flag by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      I consider the fact that it is a tradition started by Mitt Romney's dad to increase transparency for the voters that makes it a bigger issue - it makes it pretty damn obvious that he's hiding something.

      What is illegal and what is unethical are very different, and most people want to at least pretend that the elected officials they vote for are ethical. If Romney used an IRS amnesty program to pay up his previously-undeclared offshore income, then he went from illegal tax-dodger to legal taxpayer from the IRS' perspective. From the American voter perspective, however, the fact he paid up when he had a chance to do so without risking jail time or a threat to his public image doesn't necessarily improve his ethics.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    34. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Your opinion on this is based on....what? Idle speculation? What could well be coincidence? Forgive me if I say that such speculation isnt worth particularly much.

      For the record, there was an amnesty program in 2009, yet LordLimecat STILL has not released his tax returns. Must be conspiracy.

    35. Re:Romney waived a red flag by azadrozny · · Score: 0

      I think you are making his point. Why is it ok to demand Romney's tax records, but Obama's college records and transcript are off limits? You say it wouldn't influence anyone, but imagine the fall out if it was revealed that Obama received a D in economics 101, or a paper in which he argues that a monarchy is a better form of government (with or without context of the assignment).

    36. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you were running for public office and had a net worth high enough to be worth the effort of hiding money in an offshore account, that would be enough to lose my vote.

      If it's just coincidence, he should do what his father did in '68 and release the records. What does he have to lose?

    37. Re:Romney waived a red flag by shiftless · · Score: 1

      What makes you say that?

    38. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Mitt's case, there are 2 popular theories as to what he's hiding: 1) he was paying the Mormon church less tithing than he was supposed to be paying; 2) he was one of the tax cheats that applied for amnesty when the Swiss cooperated with the IRS. Hell, it could even be both.

      For all his faults, George W. Bush even released 13 years of tax returns. He probably had lots of complex business arrangements, but nothing that you wouldn't expect of a typical high net worth individual. If you aren't doing something that would betray the trust of the American people, who are considering making you the most powerful person in the world, you won't be hiding anything.

      Those are the popular theories? Then the popular people are moronic. It's clear why he doesn't release his returns; Obama wants him to release the returns because he is so wealthy and has been for a long time that the tax returns will give Obama ammo to hurt Romney during the campaign. Romney doesn't want to release them for exactly the same reason. How easy would it be for Obama to support a claim that Romney is out of touch with the "average American" when one of his returns reports something only wealthy people do, like maybe make $100,000 on a thoroughbred race horse? This is nothing more than Romney making an attempt to not release information that will help his opponent during the campaign, plain and simple.

    39. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why aren't you asking for the President to release his school records?

    40. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous+Coward5226 · · Score: 1

      Are you being willfully ignorant or just plain evasive? A man is running for the presidency of the United States of America and your response is "you are unaware of any requirements that a presidential candidate reveal his tax returns" this type of idiocy is tantamount in America, and we all wonder why some politicians gets in bed with those that have no rational for the betterment of America. If you cannot produce your tax returns, why should anyone trust your judgment, you have already showed the American people that your money does not belong in America by storing your finances in Switzerland, Cayman Island and Bahamas, that alone should disqualify you from running in the first place. The question that follows should be; why should anyone in America trust you? there is every possibility for them to put your arse in jail, unless there is one rule for minorities and another rule for whites.

    41. Re:Romney waived a red flag by sandytaru · · Score: 2

      However, we already know he had a very high GPA. You don't graduate Summa Cum Laude (with highest honors) with a D lurking in your transcript.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    42. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous+Coward5226 · · Score: 1

      Ofcourse it matters what are in those tax returns, especially if your claims are how you've created huge amounts of jobs for the American people and you are also banking your experience on your running of a corporate company, (Bain Capitals anyone) if those are your experience gained, show us what you did, how you balanced the books while running your company, where those companies in America? how many people did you employ or fired? If the birth certificate of a black president is important why not the tax returns of a presidential candidate? Which one of these two is much more important?

    43. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Romney lived in Massachusetts. Why are his returns in Tennessee?
      How did the hackers know where in the office to look?
      How did the hackers know who his accountant is?
      Why is a big 4 accounting firm doing tax returns for one person?

      I call bogus.

    44. Re:Romney waived a red flag by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Dumb question... How did FDR release his tax records "AFTER he left office", considering that he died *IN* office?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    45. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think they're using one of the standard English definitions. From dictionary.com:

      a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.: There are a number of loopholes in the tax laws whereby corporations can save money.

      Generally a tax loophole is a deduction that can be abused to generate larger than intended deductions. For example, if you could reduce your taxes by more than the value of you donation to goodwill, that would clearly be a tax loophole. Similarly, if you could install energy efficient windows in other people's houses for less than the tax deduction that would also be a loophole. If you can directly invest all of your life's earnings into a retirement account and then borrow money against the the principle and deduct the interest you pay on that loan from your earnings in such a way that you pay a much lower tax rate than normal, that's a tax loophole.

      It's true the word can be abused by people who don't like specific deductions, but in the GP, it's most likely used properly. Romney's tax accountants are most certainly using and abusing the tax laws to allow him to pay the least amount legally possible.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    46. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Jeng · · Score: 1

      When I say they should discuss the issues, I mean just that. Talk about solutions

      Don't get me wrong. I'm not voting for Romney. I'm not planning on voting for Obama either.

      The Democrats discuss the issues, the Republicans tell you that if you don't vote for them then not only are you not patriotic, but that also there will be a Thousand Years of Darkness.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    47. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flat tax, progressive tax isn't the issue.

      The complexity comes from all the cruft from 100 years deductions, penalties and credits....I mean, "Loopholes"

      Even if the tax rate were 5% there would still be lots and lots of tax code because we can't tax the poor or farmers that make investments in the future, or fishermen in a drought area, or people in a disaster area, or college students, or people with 5 kids and SSI only income or people that make money through self employment........

    48. Re:Romney waived a red flag by medcalf · · Score: 0

      Nice try at a birther sideswipe, but it's not going anywhere. As to the college records, mainly I'm curious why he's been so determined to keep them secret. My best guess is that he tried to pump up his credentials as an exotic by falsely claiming (or hinting at) foreign birth. My second best guess is that he got in based on the influence of some of his radical mentors rather than on merit. It's also entirely possible that there's nothing there of any interest, but in that case, why go to such lengths to keep the records from being released (as opposed to passively refusing to release them).

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    49. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Dumb question... How did FDR release his tax records "AFTER he left office", considering that he died *IN* office?

      It was actually his surviving family that did it. They were added to the presidential library. So FDR actually never released his tax returns as a candidate, which is what we're talking about, but pretty much ALL presidents since Nixon have released their tax returns for the years they held office.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    50. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      That's a really bad definition. If there is a rule that says:

      Do activity A and pay a 15% tax, or
      Do activity B and pay a 10% tax.

      Choosing activity B is not evading a rule or law. Otherwise we could accuse every single tax payer in the country of using tax loopholes. By which I mean, if you don't earn enough money to pay the highest tax bracket you must be using a loophole, right? If you claim the mortgage deduction you must be using a loophole.

    51. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Mitt Romney's tax returns are a completely different thing than Bain Capital's tax returns. And Bain Capital's tax returns are a matter of public record.

      Romney has already released the legally required number of years of tax returns. If it's so important to see more then the law should be changed to reflect that.

      Finally, in my opinion at least, yes, a candidate for president should have to prove their eligibility to hold that post. Their ethnicity has nothing to do with it. In fact, depending on the state, births and deaths are a matter of public record.

    52. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      What about his will too? Maybe that should be public record. After all, if he asks for any privacy whatsoever he MUST have something to hide!

      This whole attitude is ridiculous. What exactly are you expecting to find? We know its gonna come forward eventually, and Im gonna wager that theres almost nothing of note there for anyone except those who will find fault no matter what.

    53. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      how you balanced the books while running your company,

      Thats not gonna be in his tax returns, that will be in the financial books of Bain Capital.

      , especially if your claims are how you've created huge amounts of jobs for the American people

      Nor will that. Nor will who he employed, fired, etc etc etc. Those are all part of company records, not a personal tax return.

    54. Re:Romney waived a red flag by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      I know this is not the same a court of law, but I regard this issue in the same way as a person pleading the Fifth at trial. Silence, from either candidate could mean anything. Something as simple as embarrassment over poor performance on a final exam, to outright fraud on a tax return. It is easy to let your imagination run wild. In the absence of some other information you have to just accept what you have been given, then choose to believe (or not) what you have been told. If you feel the candidate has not given you enough information about them to make a choice, then vote for the other person. To run around for months or years demanding the same info, while making wild speculation about what it contains, just seems silly to me.

    55. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If you can directly invest all of your life's earnings into a retirement account

      AFAIK you cannot do that. There are contribution limits. For a Roth IRA, its $5000 a year I believe. For a 401k, google tells me its $17k. Theres no loophole, and if there wasnt a limit that wouldnt be a loophole either. Theyre pretty intentional about the language that goes into legislation; if its tax-legal and the IRS hasnt cried foul, then its not a foul.

      You MIGHT have a point if you mentioned tax havens.

      f you could install energy efficient windows in other people's houses for less than the tax deduction that would also be a loophole.

      If the legislation allowed it, no, that wouldnt be a loophole (the entire point of such a measure would be to get people to install energy efficient windows, and you can only do it once per house for a tax reduction). Pretty sure you cant, because again they intentionally prohibited it.

      if you could reduce your taxes by more than the value of you donation to goodwill, that would clearly be a tax loophole.

      Not true, because if they had not placed a charity giving limit (which they did), it would be clear that they were trying to encourage as much charitable giving as possible.

    56. Re:Romney waived a red flag by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to see someone's college records? Even when I look at transcripts for interviews, I search for the few relevant courses and try to ignore the grades. If you just want proof of the degree, usually it's public record.

    57. Re:Romney waived a red flag by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Except there was no electronic vault. As the summary quite clearly states, someone broke/snuck into the building and made copies. I'm not even sure where the term "hacker" comes in here... maybe just because they want to be paid in bitcoins?

      "Romney’s 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room. During the night, suite 260 was entered, and all available 1040 tax forms for Romney were copied. A package was sent to the PWC on suite 260 with a flash drive containing a copy of the 1040 files, plus copies were sent to the Democratic office in the county and copies were sent to the GOP office in the county at the beginning of the week also containing flash drives with copies of Romney’s tax returns before 2010. A scanned signature image for Mitt Romney from the 1040 forms were scanned and included with the packages, taken from earlier 1040 tax forms gathered and stored on the flash drives."

      I get a big kick out of people who have big heavy doors, stout locks and alarm systems on doors and windows, but you lift a fibre ceiling tile and can climb in through there. It was discovered as the means to several dorm burglaries before my time in college. Some chicken wire fence was put up there, as if that would stop anyone and that's all that existed between a thief with a rope to climb and my stuff. Alas, it's about the same where I work. Big lock on big doors, but you could go through the ceiling no trouble at all.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    58. Re:Romney waived a red flag by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Romney lived in Massachusetts. Why are his returns in Tennessee?
      How did the hackers know where in the office to look?
      How did the hackers know who his accountant is?
      Why is a big 4 accounting firm doing tax returns for one person?

      I call bogus.

      Perhaps the division of PWC in Tennessee is more accustomed to larger tax returns? Multinationals set up shop where it suits them.

      As to the rest, it smells like an inside job and that's likely where the Secret Service is looking, who worked there and knew which closet held the skeletons.

      While they were there, I wonder what else the burglars may have copied.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    59. Re:Romney waived a red flag by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Social architecting society through the tax code is what got us "loopholes" in the first place. You can't have one without the other. The two are intrinsically one in the same. Hence a simple tax code or math formula across the board (linear or exponential) is the only viable option.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    60. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You must be playing intentionally thick, no one is that stupid. A law that gives you the option of "doing activity B" and paying lower taxes would seem to be intentionally offering the choice, hence not "a loophole". The whole point of calling it "a loophole" is to identify it as an unintentional consequence. Here's another example of a tax loophole:

      Microsoft often donates copies of Microsoft Windows and Office to charitable organisations. They then write off the retail price of the software as a donation, despite the fact that the normal price for charities is much lower than the retail price and actually the only things donated were a CD, a manual and a set of licenses. Sure, they have forgone revenue but they might never have earned that anyway and the donation actually helps to crowd out alternatives to Windows.

      With this loophole Microsoft could turn a donation that cost the company $50 into a $1 million dollar donation for a net saving of $349,950 on taxes. If you want to include the opportunity cost, you would need to calculate the likelihood that the charity would purchase licenses and the price differential between retail and charitable purchase price. If the charitable price is 10% the regular price and the charity had a 50% chance of purchasing new copies of Windows, that cost works out to $50,000, and it would still net them around $300,000 in tax savings for almost no real cost.

      It's not the donating to charity that's a loophole. It's the law that allows them to count the donation at retail price instead of manufacturer's cost (thus creating the $1 million versus $50 dollar discrepancy). This loop hole probably exists because the law is older than the rise of software licensing schemes, the situation would have been almost impossible to imagine before the rise of computers and the Internet.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    61. Re:Romney waived a red flag by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      If you can directly invest all of your life's earnings into a retirement account

      AFAIK you cannot do that. There are contribution limits. For a Roth IRA, its $5000 a year I believe. For a 401k, google tells me its $17k. Theres no loophole, and if there wasnt a limit that wouldnt be a loophole either. Theyre pretty intentional about the language that goes into legislation; if its tax-legal and the IRS hasnt cried foul, then its not a foul.

      You MIGHT have a point if you mentioned tax havens.

      From what I've read, Romney put $5000/yr into his 401k, but left the majority of his wealth in the company, thus obtaining fantastic annual return on his 401k investment. At some point pulling it out and shifting it to his blind trust, however that is managed. Made buckets of money and won't pay hardly anything in taxes on it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    62. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My accountant keeps electronic copies of my tax returns, it is sort of inefficient to keep hardcopies anymore. Chances are the original tax returns were scanned and stored electronically.

    63. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You MIGHT have a point if you mentioned tax havens.

      My point wasn't that these specific tax loopholes exist, but that they are examples of things that would be loop holes. The point being that tax loop holes exist and pretending that "tax loophole" is a meaningless label is dishonest.

      If the legislation allowed it, no, that wouldnt be a loophole

      The whole point of a loophole is that the rules allow it, but a reasonable person would think the results are a bad idea. For example, having the government pay more than the work you're doing is worth should be clearly a bad idea. That's why if you could do that, it would be the result of a loophole.

      Not true, because if they had not placed a charity giving limit (which they did), it would be clear that they were trying to encourage as much charitable giving as possible.

      Absolutely true. Tax deductions for charity are supposed to encourage donations by defraying some of the cost. If you're getting more than the donation cost back, the government is paying you to make inferior donations to charity. They might as well cut the middle-man out and donate the money directly. For example, if you tax rate is 33%, tax deductions for charitable giving should generate twice as much in donations as they cost. Flipping it around so that the deductions are larger than the donations should be an obvious perversion of what the system is supposed to do. Now instead of generating 3 dollars in donation for every dollar in tax breaks, you're generating less than 1 dollar in donations for every dollar in tax breaks.

      You can't seriously be this obtuse.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    64. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      After reading your post I see now exactly what you are talking about. A loophole is anything that you want to use to beat someone up with. Ok. Gotcha.

      Unless you wrote the tax code, you have no idea if something is intended or unintended by the drafters. If something has gone on year after year and not been changed it's clearly the intended outcome. To claim otherwise is classic stupid.

    65. Re:Romney waived a red flag by medcalf · · Score: 1

      I don't think you and I are disagreeing.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    66. Re:Romney waived a red flag by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand why being wealthy is a bad thing. I would much prefer a successful leader than an unsuccessful leader. I am not jealous of people who have a lot of money. I'm happy for them. If they worked for it, good for them, they're awesome and smart and a hard worker. If they won the lottery or their parents left it for them, good for them, they got lucky.

      But I guess I'm not the typical selfish, resentful person.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    67. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

      I dont think it really matters WHAT is in the tax return TBQH

      Really? Even if that return shows that Romney took advantage of the Treasury's 2009 amnesty for those illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks? Knowing that presidential candidate has a history of illegal behaviour would seem to matter quite a bit to me.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    68. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Conception · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think some of the resentment comes from a fallacy in the distinction you made: either they worked for it, or they got lucky. But lots of people work very hard, and the poor probably work the hardest. Effort is only one contributor to wealth. Luck and societal help play a huge role in both but many of the wealthy refuse to admit that, preferring to the inflated view that it was all them and if less wealthy people would just work harder, they'd be fine. It's an arrogant presumption that simply isn't true. The guy who works two eight hour jobs for his family, six days a week, for 30K a year works harder than Romney ever has. Yet Romney has over 3,000 times the wealth of that man and generally is of the opinion he got their on his own.

    69. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Fned · · Score: 1

      I think you are making his point. Why is it ok to demand Romney's tax records, but Obama's college records and transcript are off limits?

      Because Obama's OWN FATHER didn't start a precedent for a long-standing tradition of political candidates releasing college transcripts?

      It's not a requirement, of course, but it's a pretty clear test of character. A uniquely damning one in Mitt Romney's case, for obvious reasons.

    70. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup shithead. Rich people have others do their taxes. But they tell the others how aggressive to be. They have to approve all the moving funds offshore. They have to approve all the tax dodges and shelters.

      So, no. Not all wealthy people use the same tax loop holes. Not all wealthy people have offshore accounts. Not all wealthy people have pushed the tax code so far that they've broken the law.

      It's a personal choice. Not everyone pushed the limits so far that the IRS has come after them. Perhaps Romney has, and he doesn't want everyone to know that he's basically a criminal that got off with a slap on the wrist.

      Also consider the influence the Cayman Island Government, or any other foreign government may have over him if he's got 90% of his wealth hidden there. Just want we want in a president. Someone who is effectively a puppet of a foreign government because they have locked up all his funds and threaten to confiscate them in the event he does something they don't like.

    71. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anarchduke · · Score: 1
      The biggest problem with Romney not releasing his tax returns is that it was his father, George Romney, that started the practice many years ago. George Romney said,

      In November 1967, Gov. George Romney released 12 tax returns, just prior to beginning his run for the presidency. When asked why he was releasing so many returns, he had this to say:

      “ One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show. ”

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    72. Re:Romney waived a red flag by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Id rather stick with the principle "The IRS looks it over and its none of your business", honestly.

      You mean like Romney's $20 million I.R.A.?

      Even though the IRS costs about six pennies for every hundred dollars of tax revenue it collects,
      the agency is not given the resources to sift through the complicated tax dodges employed by corporations and the 1%.

      The media makes everything so sensational these days its sickening; can we just focus on actual politics?

      The 13.9% tax rate that Romney pays is central to the country's current state of affairs.
      The kind of tax dodges that we know Romney employed and the kid of tax dodges we suspect Romney employs are politics.

      If you think the low taxes and massive accumulations of wealth are media sensationalism and not fundamental issues of public policy, you have been gravely misinformed.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    73. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Cormacus · · Score: 1

      The first I read about it, it felt like a false flag operation. I know, I know, item 1 on a list of "How to sound like a paranoid".

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    74. Re:Romney waived a red flag by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wonder when those "hackers" will get ambitious enough to go looking for Obama's school records.

    75. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can, if you have mostly As and one D (I have a very high GPA and have a D+ (I submitted my project work late (which was scored as 0), and prof weighed the project score heavily))

    76. Re:Romney waived a red flag by khallow · · Score: 1

      The guy who works two eight hour jobs for his family, six days a week, for 30K a year works harder than Romney ever has. Yet Romney has over 3,000 times the wealth of that man and generally is of the opinion he got their on his own.

      And Romney is right. I find it interesting that you realize the wealth versus luck dichotomy is a fallacy, yet you still commit the fallacy.

      The missing consideration is that not all work is equally valuable. Romney just happened to be doing work that was orders of magnitude more valuable than the guy working two eight hour jobs. Maybe problem here isn't working harder, but rather working smarter. I'll just say that there is a considerable class of people who'd be working smarter even if the only trick they learned was how to show up at a job on time.

    77. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told you what I'm expecting to find. I'm expecting to find that he took the FBAR amnesty in 2009, meaning that prior to 2009 he had undisclosed offshore accounts for the purpose of tax evasion. That's the conclusion I'm drawing when he's only showing the voters his 2010 and 2011 returns, but had no problem showing John McCain two decades of returns when he was getting vetted for the VP slot in '08.

      Unfortunately, even if this hacker has the real tax records (unlikely; this reeks of a hoax) and releases them, they wouldn't be trustworthy because there'd be no way to tell them from a well-researched fake unless they actually came from a reliable source.

    78. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, and one of those behaviors is "allowing rich people to keep their money so they'll keep bribing^H^H^H making campaign contributions"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    79. Re:Romney waived a red flag by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

      We already know Romney has an elevator for his cars and that he uses his wife's horse as a write-off for his taxes. We already know he is not just rich, but stinking filthy rich, richer than the last several Presidents combined. There is nothing extravagant that could feasibly be used by anyone to attack Romney, because the American public already sees him that way.

      Cheating the Mormon church out of their tithe wouldn't piss off the voters, it's just embarrassing. But cheating the US Government out of the taxes that you owed? That would be a massive stain on his campaign.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    80. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, Bush's college transcripts were leaked to The New Yorker. Bush didn't release them. Second, Mitt Romney's father was the first presidential candidate to release his tax records. He released twelve years worth. Too bad his son didn't inherit his character.

    81. Re:Romney waived a red flag by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Either that or more likely give the obsessive assholes something innocuous to obsess over, like how Obama let the birthers obsess for like about ever.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    82. Re:Romney waived a red flag by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...maybe theres some benefit Im unaware of.

      Many.. one of the big ones is that it gives a glimpse of the man's ethics, very important if you want to be commander in chief, or any other political office. All along here you've ignored the basic issue that if he wants power, he has to give something in return. This goes for all politicians who seek office. So please don't try to divert the discussion as some kind of partisan politics. We have nothing but crooks, because we let them hide too much. Give me ONE reason we should cut them any slack at all. More likely you will continue to ignore the issue, and keep acting as their amateur PR agent. This is what keeps qualified people off the ballot. We simply ask for too little from them. We just meekly accept their platitudes and lies at face value. And it screws over the people who want any integrity in their government and demand that their civil liberties are not violated, something that doesn't even get an honorable mention from either side. It has become a 'fringe' issue. We must put them all in a glass house. That is our obligation, and we are abdicating that for convenience and expediency.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    83. Re:Romney waived a red flag by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      That's why if you could do that, it would be the result of a loophole.

      Then blame the government. I imagine you would fire any personal accountant who didnt get you the highest legally allowable return; why are people expecting business accountants to do otherwise? Is there some rubric we can apply to figure out what is "legal but not kosher"?

      They might as well cut the middle-man out and donate the money directly.

      There are reasons thats not quite true, but point taken. Nevertheless, I think blaming the person for taking advantage of it is like putting out a sign saying "free puppies" and then yelling at the first person to take one.

    84. Re:Romney waived a red flag by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      What makes you say that?

      Because it's many times easier for someone who works at PWC to pull the records, make a copy and take it home than it is for somebody who doesn't even know their filing system or where Mr. Romney's returns might be to sneak in, find the file, copy the file and escape undetected.

      Also, the chance that someone at PWC doesn't want to see Mr. Romney elected is approximately 100%.

    85. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they were initially leaked in 2000, but Bush officially released them when he was a candidate in 2004.

      http:// 2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

      Okay, so Carter was the first President, not the first candidate. Sure as hell didn't go all the way back to FDR. As to character, I view the tax return brouhaha as the red herring du jour.

    86. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Ah, you are that stupid. You're another "anything that's legal is ethical" moron.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    87. Re:Romney waived a red flag by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Then blame the government.

      I think I would blame the people who won't allow the loopholes to be closed. For example, Grover Norquist is the chief architect of the Republican inability to close tax loop holes. Almost all of the currently elected Republicans have signed his pledge that they will never raise taxes even by closing an obviously abused loophole in the tax code*.

      I imagine you would fire any personal accountant who didnt get you the highest legally allowable return; why are people expecting business accountants to do otherwise?

      Generally speaking, I might be upset that certain corporations are getting away with paying less than their fair share, however, I don't blame them for (ab)using the rules. Unless, of course, their lobbyists are responsible for creating the loophole and/or maintaining it, in which case they obviously should share the blame with their bought politicians.

      * They are only allowed to close tax loopholes if the overall level of taxation stays constant or goes lower (for example, they can offset the closing of a tax loophole by lowering the base tax rate)

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    88. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand politics.

      McCain was *never* going to go attacking Obama over the Birther thing.
      1. McCain is not stupid, Birthers are conspiracy idiots.
      2. McCain has no legal footing to stand on. Since it was *HE* who was not a "Natural Born Citizen". (McCain was born in Panama, just like George Romney was born in Mexico)

      Similarly, There is *no* downside to the Democrats pounding Romney over his Tax Returns, It makes Romney look like he has something to hide (he does), and it's a great message. The 1% is offloading their tax responsibility to the Middle Class.

    89. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hackers are people, my friend.

      Hacks are the improvements to the processes they hack.

      This one seems kind of cheesy, at first glance, but has potential. I expect the perpetrator will be arrested, but with luck, maybe the returns will be released, as well.

    90. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's impossible to become rich without luck or assistance. It's literally just a numbers game at that point. You're racing to the top with a thousand other people exactly like you in background and ambition. They can't _all_ make it; the world economy just can't make everybody rich. And for the super rich (> $20 million) it's almost all luck, unless you inherited it.

      Hard work and smarts will only ever get you to the top of the middle class... maybe.

      I'm well in the top 3% of the income distribution, but grew up in poverty (i.e. eating from food basket handouts from church groups). And I can tell you it's really hard to fully appreciate all the good people and lucky turns I've had. People always look up and forward, not down and back. It's human nature. But at least I realize that. Some people are just completely fscking clueless.

    91. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Why is it ok to demand Romney's tax records, but Obama's college records and transcript are off limits?

      Because you're a nosy idiot pushing a false equivalency. Releasing college transcripts is not nor has it ever been standard operating procedure in politics. Releasing tax returns, however, is.

      Like when Romney wanted to see the tax returns for his possible running mates.

    92. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nice try at a birther sideswipe, but it's not going anywhere.

      So you're a nosy douchebag rather than a racist, interesting.

      As to the college records, mainly I'm curious why he's been so determined to keep them secret.

      Nosy douchebag framing, noted. He's not "keeping them secret", as transcripts are never open to the public to begin with. It's Obama's choice to release them or not, and he has no reason to release them just to placate some nosy douchebags trying to create an equivalence between Obama's transcripts and Romney's tax returns.

    93. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      They have Obama's college transcripts and passport as examples. If he can keep those secret, surely Romney's tax returns can be kept under wraps too.

      I suppose you could see it that way, if you were dumber than pond scum and more dishonest than Baghdad Bob.

      Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government, and his college transcripts have fuck-all to do with that. Rather than hitting Obama on his actual hypocrisy over what he was actually talking about - like promising to hold health care hearings on CSPAN and then literally making the same deals behind closed doors with the same lobbyists he attacked during the campaign - you guys have to peddle some false equivalency drivel. But hey, that's what happens when the only honest, reality-based criticism of Obama comes from the left.

      As for Romney's tax returns, that ship sailed when he demanded to see the tax returns of his possible running mates so he could vet them.

    94. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government

      ... while running the most secretive and closed administration ever. Breaking promises about public hearings on health care is just the tip of the iceberg. You then have to look at they way he promised not to take money from lobbyists, which then just turned into have registered lobbyists shut out, while access gets granted to unregistered lobbyists and "bundlers". And the quote doctoring required of all media outlets, as reported by the New York Times, administration officials holding meetings with lobbyists at coffee shops to avoid official logs of the meetings, exerting "executive privilege" over the criminal "Fast and Furious" operation, and on and on.

      In fact, the Obama administration was given the GWU "Rosemary Award" for the Worst Open Government Performance in 2011.

      I could go on for days about this kind of hypocrisy.

      Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government

      You must be looking at a different conversion than I was replying to - I don't know where this comes from. The discussion started with Romney's tax returns, which is personal information unrelated to government transparency, at least while he's not holding public office.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    95. Re:Romney waived a red flag by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      Academic records have been a hot button issue for the last few presidential cycles? Kerry, Bush had similar grades at Yale, Comparing the academic record of Al Gore, John Kerry and George W. Bush, John McCain's academic record, Gore's Dubious School Record. I personally am not asking, I really don't care to be honest. But it is a fair comparison. Neither candidate is required to provide any such documentation, precedent or not. If you feel you have not been given enough info about a candidate, then vote for the other guy.

    96. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Kerry, Bush had similar grades at Yale, Comparing the academic record of Al Gore, John Kerry and George W. Bush, John McCain's academic record, Gore's Dubious School Record.

      Nonsense. For one, we already know that Obama graduated Sigma Cum Laude. For another, it's slight of hand to pretend talk of known grades is the same thing as demanding the release of college transcripts, which has never been an issue at least in any modern presidential election.

      But it is a fair comparison.

      It's pathetic teabagger drivel, since everyone knows that Obama was talking about transparency in government. What's really sad, though, is Obama has plenty of actual hypocrisy on his actual promise to ding him for. Vowing to hold health care hearings on CSPAN, then the same backroom deals with literally the same lobbyist that he attacked in 2008. Vowing to protect whistleblowers and then prosecuting more whistleblowers than all past presidents combined. Promising to limit the influence of lobbyists, only to have his staff meet with them at coffee shops to get around the White House visitor log.

      But wingers take a winning argument against Obama, and somehow manage to turn it into irrelevant junior high school bullshit. Amazing, really....it's like they've become so addicted to sophistry that they continue to use it when sitting in front of their noses is a valid case to be made....

    97. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VAT tax would solve that. tax on consumption at point of purchase.

    98. Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron and ignorant.

      Someone pays me to design/develop because I specialise in that shit.

      I pay an accountant to do my taxes because he specialises in that shit.

      Simple.

      Ergo, you're a moron and ignorant.

  6. Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember when Bush II was being attacked as a draft dodger. Someone released faked documents, which the news media picked up as real. When they were discredited, no one would touch the issue anymore, whether it was legitimate or not.

    This could turn out to be a similar ploy to help Romney - by associating the tax returns with criminal activity, it might get too hot for the Dems to touch, making an otherwise legitimate issue go away.

    1. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by drewco · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Orly Taitz and her Kenyan birth certificate.

    2. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. The hacker will "release" some obvious fakes and then Romney won't need to worry about anyone finding out he took the FBAR amnesty back in '09.

    3. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by furytrader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your conspiracy theory seems like another example of the well-recognized cognitive dissonance that Democrats have about Republicans: We're all really stupid, except when we're able to hatch these amazingly sophisticated conspiracies to steal elections. Move on, indeed!

    4. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Naming yourself after a mocking Internet meme doesn't help her case any.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one is saying that Republicans are stupid in terms of playing politics. They have stupid policies such as force-feeding creationism in science class, but they are geniuses at fear-mongering, name-calling, and just flat-out lying in order to get what they want. You want to talk about leaving Iraq? Well, you're a cut-and-run coward who hates America. You want to help the poor and middle class? You're engaging in class warfare, and you hate success. These guys are freaking geniuses at political gamesmanship. Look at ObamaCare. They were able to stop even a single Republican representative from voting in favor of the bill. Are you telling me that not one of them thought the bill was a good idea or was the leadership that absolute? Hint: it's the latter.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    6. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure how you can call that cognitive dissonance in this era. The Republicans have a very massive public front that is filled with idiots and a very smart back room that is using those idiots to their advantage.

      Secondly, the "conspiracies" that are affecting voter turnout and possible mis-counting of votes aren't that sophisticated at all. It doesn't take much to come up with a rule that affects how the poor can get to polls (plus it wouldn't be a conspiracy because it's done right out in the open in the legislatures. Conspiracies are secret.)

      It also it doesn't take much to get something nefarious into computer code when you're going to make it closed source and unavailable for neutral experts to examine it.

    7. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naming yourself

      Who the OP, or that woman? I think you mean herself.

    8. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice way to spin that. Are you suggesting that Bush himself was behind the claim? If you are I'd like to know what evidence you have to support that.

    9. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by medcalf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could also be the other way around. Obama's past campaigns have a history of getting private information disclosed, like opponents' divorce records. It's as plausible that the Obama campaign illegally obtained the records from the IRS, and when public pressure wouldn't force Romney to release the records, decided to stage a burglary to get them out in the public without the campaign's fingerprints on them. I doubt that happened, but it's as or more likely than that Romney was attempting to take them out of the discussion by making them "too hot ... to touch."

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    10. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

      Reading through the claims this woman makes, I can only respond with "Oh really?".

    11. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is I don't really see tax returns as all that interesting or a 'legitmate' issue.

      We mostly know what sort of business Romeny was in and we known plently about the caracteristics and behavior of those businesses. That said Bain Capital's tax returns would be of far more interest than Romeny's personal returns. They would provide lots of detail about the business and the kind of action Romeny voluntarily engagues in.

      Personal returns won't tell us much. How much money did he make. Well we already know it was dumptruck loads, from most of our personal prespectives. Honestly does it matter if it was 3M or 5M?

      What part of it was salaray and what was investment income? We know from what has been released most of it is going to be investment income.

      Did Romney use tax advantaged vehicles to protect as much of his personal wealth from the tax man as possible? I am sure he did, just as I do and I am sure you do as well. Got a 401k, IRA, one of the college savings plans for your kids, did you chose to buy a home rather than rent to get the advantage of the Intrest deduction? I bet you did and that does not make you a tax cheat. Romeny did not get to make the rules. I don't think its fair to expect him to leave anything one the table when you and I don't and won't.

      Now had he been a sitting Senator or House Rep and actually voted on tax rules that he himself could take advantage of there might be some scandal there but that is not true of his case. McCain and Obama were a different story.

      I think this noise about individual tax returns is just that noise.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Creedo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think that anyone is accusing the big dogs of the GOP of being idiots. Sure, some of the mouthpieces are real pieces of work(Palin, Bachmann, Akin, Perry), but the real movers are not. The common accusation is that they are selfish plutocrats who are willing to sell the country out to the religious right while pushing the middle class and poor under in the bus. Sure, the general stance in regards to science that is associated with the GOP as a whole paints them in a dim light, but I think that that is largely just pandering to ignorant voters(with some obvious exceptions, such as are listed above).

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    13. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Stupid people still create complicated and ridiculous solutions to problems. Often it is also stupid. Consider using lead as an octane booster in gasoline (a burn regulator), when we've always used low-lead pewter for holloware and no-lead pewter for flatware because we've known lead is highly poisonous since the beginning of time. Yes that's right, for a millennium or three we've known not to use more than 4% lead in beer tankards and 0% in plates and knives to make pewter (otherwise pewter is 14% lead), and then we go and stick lead powder in something we're going to burn and belch into the air as a way to solve a complex chemical problem in which a chemical occasionally ignites too early from heat build-up during compression.

      Clever, but stupid. Clever enough to use a high density metal dust to slow the reaction, too stupid to think about the implications of belching toxic heavy metals into the air. You think politicians can't think up complicated PR fuckery and still be morons?

    14. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean, "Oh really, Orly?" She should have changed her last name to O'Rielly.

    15. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, both democrats and republicans are amazingly stupid. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, free speech zones, pointless wars, the TSA, etc.

      Honestly, who is still voting for these clowns? Wait...

    16. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Actually, both democrats and republicans are amazingly stupid. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, free speech zones, pointless wars, the TSA, etc.

      Stupid? They are the ones becoming millionaires on your dime.

    17. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong. But if you think that is would be an "amazingly sophisticated" plan you really are stupid. As far as plans go it doesn't get much simpler than this.

    18. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm hosed for karma now.
      ". Are you telling me that not one of them thought the bill was a good idea "
      yes. And one apparently even agreed with all of it. (Senate was zero)
      I don't know anyone that has read all 2801 pages that agrees with all of that bill. There are lots of good things in the bill, but there is also a ton of crap and just horrible things in that bill.
      Had that bill been broken into say 28 different items, (100 pages per. I know it wouldn't really work out that easy) then the people voting on it would have maybe read each of them before the vote and then decided to vote for some of the good, and punt some of the bad.
      I have also spoken with several representatives that said "We didn't have time to read all of it, so we just voted the party line" (Both Ds and Rs)
      There was entirely too much in that one bill to not have issues with and there was entirely too much in there for there to not be good in it.

      health care in this country does have serious issues and needs a lot of fixes. BUT there was too much crap in this bill for it to be the "fix" we need. Including "savings" by "keeping benefits the same" they are going to pay doc's less for the same procedures, because they have become common. So for procedure A in 2014, a Dr will make less than he did in 2008. It's still the same procedure, and inflation has occurred, soooo.

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
    19. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      That said Bain Capital's tax returns would be of far more interest than Romeny's personal returns.

      Bain is an LLC, so the taxation is all pass-through to the partners. So there really aren't any tax filings by Bain as a company, other than the 1065, which is a pretty basic income statement. Not interesting at all.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    20. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is saying that Republicans are stupid in terms of playing politics...they are geniuses at fear-mongering, name-calling, and just flat-out lying in order to get what they want.

      I'm amused that you think Democrats aren't every bit as good at it, or that they don't practice it. The tit-for-tat we could list here about both parties' underhanded tactics could go on all day. Anyone who thinks their own political party is virtuous while the other guys' party is a hive of scum and villainy is either naive or disingenuous.

    21. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without having them, we don't know what there might be to hide. The thing that keeps popping up is the possibility that Romney took advantage of the amnesty deal for tax cheats that had offshore accounts. Without the records nobody in the general public knows, but it's one of the reasons why he's being eyed with so much suspicion. The other reason is that every other candidate going back many decades has released the records and Romney could put the issue to bed by releasing them.

    22. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid people can be very clever and stubborn about doing the stupid things they do.

      It's the things they end up with that define their stupidity.

    23. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Above · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree mostly with the parent, but not entirely.

      To the extent Romney legally made a lot of money, and legally paid his taxes the actual amounts are pretty nearly irrelevant.

      However, there is some interesting speculation out there that what's in his returns is in fact he was a tax cheat. You see, in 2009 the IRS had an amnesty program for people with money stashed overseas. We already know Romney had a bunch of money stashed in overseas accounts. The amnesty was because a high percentage of folks with overseas accounts (upwards of 80%, by some estimates) had failed to report their assets in the required way. Since they are the 1%, the Congress passed a "one time out" program, admit breaking the law, but rather than get thrown in jail or pay a penalty simply pay the tax you would have owed.

      We don't know if Romney took advantage of the program, but the odds are quite high he did. If so, what he did by participating was admit he had cheated the tax code for some number of years. That would absolutely be relevant for a political candidate.

    24. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that anyone is accusing the big dogs of the GOP of being idiots. Sure, some of the mouthpieces are real pieces of work(Palin, Bachmann, Akin, Perry), but the real movers are not. The common accusation is that they are selfish plutocrats who are willing to sell the country out to the religious right while pushing the middle class and poor under in the bus. Sure, the general stance in regards to science that is associated with the GOP as a whole paints them in a dim light, but I think that that is largely just pandering to ignorant voters(with some obvious exceptions, such as are listed above).

      The GOP has radically turned to propaganda.... Take for example this most recent GOP ad with Chuck Norris claiming if Obama is reelected it will be "1000 years of darkness in America":

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFLNmThRMNQ

    25. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Political parties are a hive of scum and villainy. That is a fact.

    26. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Republican voters are mostly self centered religious zealots who use god as an excuse to do mean things to people who are different from them. People running the platform are not stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wrong. Many of them where favorably to the idea until 2010. When there number one priority wasn't trying to do whats best, or run a government, it was defeat Obama, even if they have to burn the country to the ground.

      You might want to actual read up on the republican in office history before answering for all of them, you only look more stupid. Don't have time to read up on that? fine, but don't act like you know what the fuck you are talking about.

      "I don't know anyone that has read all 2801 pages"
      I have. Twice. I also have a section by section break down. I know many other people who have read it.

      " So for procedure A in 2014, a Dr will make less than he did in 2008. It's still the same procedure, and inflation has occurred, soooo."
      OK, you haven't read it, but you are willing to make statements about it? you're a fucking idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Bingo. We need to be able to mod to 6 for comments like this.

      I've always called this tactic "innoculation", and it's pure Karl Rove. The recipe is to pre-empt the potential release of damaging information with alternative damaging information that is provably fake. Once the fake documents are discredited, the media and the public will ignore any successive release of similar documents, even if they are genuine. You can innoculate the public against the truth by priming them with similar-sounding lies.

      And you're spot-on about the position this puts the Dems in, as well. Even if they had the Real Thing (through whatever channels), any release now would associate them with the extortionists.

      There must be something awfully damning in those tax returns for the GOP to be going full-Rove on them like this!

    29. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      You want to talk about leaving Iraq? Well, you're a cut-and-run coward who hates America.

      Haven't you heard the news from this year's RNC? Bu- uh, Obama's wars were a TERRIBLE idea and never should have been started.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    30. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the sad part is the media didn't vet those documents. Major lapse that cost Dan Rather his network job.

      The secretary involved in the story did read the fake version of the documents, and verified that yes, the information was essentially correct. The charges were true, the papers purporting to prove it were not.

      Oh well, if only the Dems used Paul Ryan's version of the "truth" from this campaign, they could have gotten away with it.

    31. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Karl Rove, or someone who learned at the feet of the master. Fits his M.O. perfectly. Read up on him (e.g., Bush's Brain by Moore and Slater, or The Architect by the same authors) and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Rove invented GWB as a political figure.

    32. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it sounds like schizophrenic folie.

    33. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have stupid policies such as force-feeding creationism in science class

      This entirely depends on your goals. If your goal is to have a well educated populace, then yes, it's a stupid policy. However, and I would be willing to bet this is much more likely, if your goal is to have a dumb population that thinks they're educated (because Pastor McJudgementDay told them God said so) so that they're easy to manipulate (this candidate supports God's Will, so we should do what he says!) then it's actually freaking brilliant.

    34. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Stupid? They are the ones becoming millionaires on your dime.

      Until they're all lined up against the wall, or in front of the guillotine.

    35. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats are just as bad. It's not a Republican or Democrat uniqueness to name calling or fear mongering or just flat out lying; that's politicians. Have you watched the Democratic National Convention? The entire convention is about name calling. I don't see anything touting Democrat successes, just tearing down the Republicans. Heck there have been 3 comparisons of Repubs to Nazis by Dem politicians in the last week.

      I'm not saying Repubs don't do it either. But saying only one group is a master of it is being willfully blind to reality.

    36. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to add... the best trick the republicans ever pulled off was making voters think they're dumb.

      Oh GWB? He's an idiot monkey-face... he's harmless... he's just an average guy! Let's vote him in for a second term!

    37. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have stupid policies such as force-feeding creationism in science class, but they are geniuses at fear-mongering, name-calling, and just flat-out lying in order to get what they want.

      Most Republicans don't want creationism taught as science. More to the point, electing a Republican President won't lead to science curriculum change.

      As for the lying: The DNC had Bill Clinton delivering the keynote last night.

      You want to talk about leaving Iraq? Well, you're a cut-and-run coward who hates America.

      Most Republicans agree we've been in Iraq long enough. Afghanistan, too. Reducing our military presence and expense, especially in foreign lands is not as hard of a sell as it used to be.

      You want to help the poor and middle class? You're engaging in class warfare, and you hate success.

      Helping poor is not class warfare by any Republican. Most Republicans want to help the poor. Most Republicans are middle class.
      Fomenting contempt for group of people in order to demonize them as a political class is the definition of class warfare. When the democrats show contempt for high-income earners they are engaging in class warfare.

      These guys are freaking geniuses at political gamesmanship. Look at ObamaCare. They were able to stop even a single Republican representative from voting in favor of the bill. Are you telling me that not one of them thought the bill was a good idea or was the leadership that absolute? Hint: it's the latter.

      The "Obamacare" package, as a whole, was an abomination. Some of us think about things beyond just the distributed talking points.

    38. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Good points. But, the problem with the party line is that the R's are trying to avoid any change while the D's don't really know what to change nor have the political capital to enact real change.

      Politics is unfortunately never long-term enough in its objectives. In the healthcare debate, providing more services to more people is more expensive. Providing preventative procedures on people is supposedly less expensive. Something has to happen to reduce the cost of healthcare as a percentage of the GDP, or the cliff of an aging population will not be sustainable.

    39. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Anyone who thinks their own political party is virtuous while the other guys' party is a hive of scum and villainy is either naive or disingenuous.

      Or a resident of Mos Eisley.

    40. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      That's not what Democrats think. We know that people like Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch are diabolical geniuses. It's Republican voters who are stupid.

    41. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Romney participated in the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative he effectively bought his way out of jail time for tax evasion. Regardless of your politics that would surely shred a candidates chances to become POTUS.

    42. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Who needs facts and truth when their base acts on faith and belief.

      It's genius.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    43. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks their own political party is virtuous while the other guys' party is a hive of scum and villainy is either naive or disingenuous.

      This is true. It is also true that virtue vs. scum and villainy is a continuum, not a binary state, and anyone who thinks that the two major parties fall in exactly the same place along that continuum isn't paying attention.

      Star Wars was a great movie, but it's not a particularly good guide to understanding how the world actually works.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    44. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Score+Whore · · Score: 2

      Given that 300 pages were added to the PPACA in the early morning hours (2:00 AM or so) and at the time of the vote those changes were unavailable to Republican House members -- it was stored on a Democrat file server -- it is a bit absurd to say that anyone was in favor of that bill prior to it's being submitted in the house by their opponents.

    45. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by bziman · · Score: 1

      Nobody said the GOP was stupid - it takes a high degree of intellect to use religion to steal billions of dollars from the public and funnel it to their own personal interests. And even more impressive is how they convinced the public that the Democrats are actually different than the GOP and that there's any "choice" at all!

    46. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Anyone notice the increasing lack of civility and cooperation in politics?

      There is one simple answer. The local Democratic offices start passing out rifles to loyal Democrat voters with the clear message that the Republicans are so utterly vile and disgusting that there can never be any peace. The only solution to save the country from utter ruin is to start shooting Republicans. Because every Democrat today knows that Republicans aren't really human and have no human feelings eliminating them can be done like taking out the trash. With the split currently around 40/40/10 the 40% of the country that identifies themselves could easily bag enough Republicans to make sure the problem goes away forever.

      Of course, the local Republican offices have to the same thing - distribute rifles, handguns and shotguns to loyal Republicans because allowing a single Democrat to be elected is the road to sure ruin of the country. Pay some Democrats back for all those Chimpy McBush comments.

      The end result of this is (a) a lot of rifles on the ground next to dead bodies, (b) truely civil political discourse because everyone sees what happens when you lose that, and (c) about 1/10th the current population in the US meaning problems with unemployment, pollution, traffic jams, crime and everything else virtually disappears overnight. Going from 300 million people to 30 million means Social Security is funded through the year 802,701 and everyone has a job.

      I believe this program could be instituted quickly and bring about a solution to all of the nation's woes before the next election.

    47. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      What we got with Obamacare was a guaranteed one-way trip to a single payer plan where the Government is picking up the tab for everyone. And the government spending several trillion more a year to do so.

      You thought single payer wasn't in there? No, it isn't, but it is the only possible outcome now. What happens in 2014 now is every single major employer (50 people or more) will simply drop their health insurance coverage for employees. Yes, that means that they will have to pay a fine for doing so - I think it is capped at around $15,000 no matter how many employees you have. The other alternative is to be paying $15,000 to $20,000 a year per employee for health care coverage. I have been to some meetings and other people I know have been to others. Universally, everyone with employees (large and small) is saying they are pulling the plug.

      So what happens? The workers get government-subsidized health insurance. However, the costs for this haven't been discussed because the assumption has been (and all the cost estimates based upon) employers just keep paying no matter how the costs per employee go up. With the government picking up the tab now so people do not go without health insurance, it is an easy out for employers.

      There you have it. By June of 2014 the government will be paying for around 90% of the health insurance coverage in the US. That may be as close to single-payer as we are going to get, but my guess is they just go the whole way and shut down all the insurance companies and add those people to the government welfare roles. According to some estimates I have seen, the spending will be around 3.5 to 4.0 trillion a year for this. All of it financed by China, Saudia Arabia and anyone else they can get to buy the bonds.

    48. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      According to some estimates I have seen, the spending will be around 3.5 to 4.0 trillion a year for this. All of it financed by China, Saudia Arabia and anyone else they can get to buy the bonds.

      Have you seen how many bonds China and Saudia Arabia (aren't) buying these days? They aren't going to sell that many bonds to foreign investors on top of the existing deficit and monitization of the current deficit is already expanding the currency supply by 10% annually.

      What's more likely is the drastic imposition of price caps and rationing.

    49. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

      The thing is I don't really see tax returns as all that interesting or a 'legitmate' issue

      If it shows illegal behaviour it's entirely legitimate to make it an issue

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    50. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The Republican leaders aren't stupid. Their supporters (who aren't part of the rich elite) are the stupid ones. A major part of the Republican platform is anti-science, which is just catering to the stupid.

    51. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by assertation · · Score: 1


      Your conspiracy theory seems like another example of the well-recognized cognitive dissonance that Democrats have about Republicans: We're all really stupid, except when we're able to hatch these amazingly sophisticated conspiracies to steal elections.

      Reasons why some Americans are Repubicans:

      1. They are rich, it benefits their self interests, they know it and they don't care about other issues ( fair enough, that is human nature ).

      2. They were raised Republican, the people around them are Republican, they have an emotional affiliation with the word "Republican" they way some people do about a religion eventhough they seriously don't believe what is in the writings. This emotional affiliation creates a filter such that they will not look at the facts and how it relates to their interests, with an open clear mind.

      3. They are under-informed, misinformed or just not that bright.

      Group 2, can be of average intelligence and event smart. Group 1 tends to have very smart people, who got rich and/or stay rich by using their smarts...and resources, to misinform, then emotionally manipulate Group 3 and Group 2.

      That is how there can be many stupid people who are Republicans ( Group 3, TEA Baggers, etc ), yet Republicans can and do pull many dirty unethical tricks that require intelligence.

    52. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's like you've never seen propaganda before. Having said that, I agree the claims are greatly exaggerated, I figure reelecting Obama will only result in 20 to 50 years of darkness.

    53. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      IRA

      About that IRA...does anyone have any idea how Romney managed to get such a huge IRA? Everything I have read suggests that it's practically impossible to get that much money into an IRA, given the time frame during which Romney was making contributions.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    54. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Reasons why some Americans are Democrats:

      1. They are rich, it benefits their self interests, they know it and they don't care about other issues ( fair enough, that is human nature ).

      2. They were raised Democrats, the people around them are Democrats, they have an emotional affiliation with the word "Democrats" they way some people do about a religion even though they seriously don't believe what is in the writings. This emotional affiliation creates a filter such that they will not look at the facts and how it relates to their interests, with an open clear mind.

      3. They are under-informed, misinformed or just not that bright.

      Group 2, can be of average intelligence and event smart. Group 1 tends to have very smart people, who got rich and/or stay rich by using their smarts...and resources, to misinform, then emotionally manipulate Group 3 and Group 2.

      That is how there can be many stupid people who are Republicans ( Group 3, MoveOn, etc ), yet Democrats can and do pull many dirty unethical tricks that require intelligence.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    55. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      The charge was going AWOL, which was probably true, but you're right that one of the items of evidence was faked and this was enough to sink the whole issue.

    56. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that 300 pages were added to the PPACA in the early morning hours (2:00 AM or so) and at the time of the vote those changes were unavailable to Republican House members -- it was stored on a Democrat file server -- it is a bit absurd to say that anyone was in favor of that bill prior to it's being submitted in the house by their opponents.

      [citation needed]

    57. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Interesting... I never knew that divorce records are that secret and cannot be obtained via anyway but you... http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Divorce-Records describes briefly about how to obtain it. Would that still be a "big" secret?

    58. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 'burning the country to the ground' business seems to be a major plank in both party's platforms.

    59. Re:Remember George W. Bush's draft dodging? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash: representatives don't read bills, committees do. It's been this way for, oh, I don't know, 200 years! More than 200 years, actually. Close to maybe 500, or ever since the English Parliament became the prime law making body.

      Congressmen don't read bills, like like programmers don't read standards documents. How many people do you know who've read the entire C standard? C++ standard? POSIX? Very few.** For something as large and complex as the C++, probably most committee members have never read the it in its entirety.

      So if programmers don't read a document changed once every 10 years, why would you think that Congressmen would read something similar, which changes every day!? Both get paid to know and understand the rules in the document. And both end up relying on hearsay 90% of the time, or worse.

      ** I've read and keep copies of C99, C11, and POSIX, but I'm very rare. In fact, of 50 or so of my peers, I know only 1 other person like me. Everyone else I know who's read those documents I've met over the internet, and a substantial portion of them are on the standards committees. A very small circle, indeed.

  7. research research my friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original release and on pastebin makes no mention of the money. Speculation at the moment is that someone took the original release and "added" a ransom and resubmitted it to pastebin.

    1. Re:research research my friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      A little more digging finds an earlier draft of the story (July):
      http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/

  8. $1 million in bitcoins by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Funny

    "$1 million in bitcoins" ... and they say *Romney's* out of touch with the real world?

    1. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the current exchange rate is about $10 for 1. They only have to hold that for a little while.

      Also, how are prosaic thieves who raided a cabinet "hackers"? Unless they got through the office door with a hatchet.

      In any case, they claim to have given a copy to county party officials, so it should be easy enough to verify.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      They should have demanded Smurfberries.

    3. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      they hold their value better, that is for sure.

    4. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      It makes more sense when you say "$1 million" using a Doctor Evil voice.

    5. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

      Maple Syrup!

    6. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      If the county party officials have it theyijust return it to Romney. They'll want no part of a burglary. If you want it distributed give it to the press.

    7. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      I once received a cheque for a million Gummiberries, but it bounced.

      </badjoke>

    8. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Any "hacker" worth his salt would've asked for one hundred billion dollars...in bitcoins.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re: $1 million in bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *puts little finger in mouth*

      One MILLION dollars!

  9. Hackers making copies? by synapse7 · · Score: 2

    Is there some reasoning why thieves that broke into a building and supposedly made copies of a document(why not just take the actual papers instead of making copies?) would be labeled hackers? The whole thing sounds suspect to me.

    1. Re:Hackers making copies? by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2

      ...why not just take the actual papers instead of making copies?

      Not raising suspicion. If stuff vanishes there's a higher probability that it gets noticed too early.

    2. Re:Hackers making copies? by Kit+Cosper · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows "hacker" == "technology + evil" and it gets more play than a headline that reads "Accountant Office Burglarized: Romney Tax Returns Stolen"

      --
      Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
    3. Re:Hackers making copies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I put on my tinfoil hat I could suggest they would be labeled hackers to keep the word "hacker" in the media as a negative thing so it can later be used to justify internet regulation. Of course, that's only if I'm wearing this stylish chapeau.

    4. Re:Hackers making copies? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Ya, I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure what part of this constitutes hacking, but it sounds more like standard burglary to me.

    5. Re:Hackers making copies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the term you are looking for is pirate. Wait till Romney sues for a copyright violation on his tax returns. hahahaha

    6. Re:Hackers making copies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only 'hack' here was the quality of the reporting.

    7. Re:Hackers making copies? by magarity · · Score: 1

      They seem to think (mistakenly) breaking in + stolen paper + stolen toner breaking in + stealing originals when they finally get caught.

      Either that or they've watched one too many spy movies where the hero always makes a copy and leaves the originals.

    8. Re:Hackers making copies? by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      If the report is accurate, they seem to have been carefully committing misdemeanors like trespass or petty larceny (paper & toner) rather than felonies like breaking and entering or burglary.

    9. Re:Hackers making copies? by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      The hacking part was a bit of social engineering to get into the 3rd floor. You might recall it was Kevin Mitnicks specialty as well, and he is arguably the most famous "hacker" of all time. After all, it is a lot easier to convince somebody to just tell you the password you need, rather than trying a billion brute force attempts.

  10. What's the point? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OMG, he's rich! Yeah, we kinda know that already.

    Reminds me of the time in high school when someone ran down a corridor yelling that the math teacher was bald. His response was, [sarcasm]"Why didn't anyone tell me???"[/sarcasm] Of course, hypertext markup language hadn't been invented yet.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2009+FBAR+amnesty

      tl;dr: In early 2009, the Swiss bank UBS was indited in a massive tax-evasion scheme and as part of their settlement with the American IRS, they revealed thousands of names of account holders (to the IRS, but not to the public). The IRS then instituted an amnesty program, where if you came clean about your previously undisclosed offshore accounts in your 2009 tax returns, your penalty would be reduced and you wouldn't go to jail for tax evasion.

      Romney is only releasing his tax returns from 2010 or later.

    2. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The suspicion is that he might have taken amnesty for Swiss accounts in 2009.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point isn't that he's rich; the contention is that he did not pay his fair share in taxes because of loopholes that exist for the rich. He has already released the last two years.... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-stands-his-ground-to-release-only-two-years-of-returns/
      More likely than not, because everybody fudges on their taxes to some degree he doesn't want to come under IRS scrutany. By the way, can we see Obama's tax returns for the past 10 years? Oh yeah, I thought not. He's not exactly poor himself nor is he above using the system that exists to his own advantage.

    4. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more to it than "he's rich". There's nothing wrong with being rich. The relevant question is "How much in net taxes did he pay while being rich?" If it's, say, somewhere between 0% and 15%, then a lot of people are going to say "Well, there's your tax revenue problem." It would make it pretty hard for someone like Romney to make a case for leaving the Bush era tax cuts in place for the top of the income scale, while most middle-income people are paying a larger fraction of their income as taxes.

    5. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about him being rich? The issue is whether or not he has broken the law, and assuming that he has not, whether the effective tax rate he has paid and is paying is acceptable.

    6. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can. Dumbass.

    7. Re:What's the point? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      There's more to it than "he's rich". There's nothing wrong with being rich. The relevant question is "How much in net taxes did he pay while being rich?" If it's, say, somewhere between 0% and 15%, then a lot of people are going to say "Well, there's your tax revenue problem." It would make it pretty hard for someone like Romney to make a case for leaving the Bush era tax cuts in place for the top of the income scale, while most middle-income people are paying a larger fraction of their income as taxes.

      This is all bullshit. The lower rate is because the income is investment income. What a lot of people intentionally leave out about the tax rates on investment income is that is essentially extra tax on money that has already been taxed. It works like this: Say you work hard for 20 years earning about $60,000 a year. You pay about 19% in federal taxes, 5% in local/state, leaving you $45,600 to live. Somehow you manage to live a frugal existence and save 20,000 a year. After 20 years you've got $400,000. So you take your money and invest it, maybe in a company, or some stocks, or whatever. You make a decent 8% return the first year - a cool $32,000! Oh, but guess what? Even though you've worked for 20 years to save that money, the IRS now wants ANOTHER $4,800 chunk of your earnings. From money you ALREADY paid taxes on over that 20 years. Not only that, you pay that rate even though someone else making only $32,000 that year pays much less. That's on top of whatever taxes your investment entities had to pay, and any employees of those companies had to pay. So NOW what do you think of "fair share"?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:What's the point? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your problem is with the IRS.

      PS: I don't support Romney

    9. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pay up.

      "I earned money! This money's special, it shouldn't be taxed, because it had to do with money I already earned."

      I use my car to get to work and make money. I use gasoline to fuel my car and help me make money. I use food to fuel myself and make money. I use a computer to do my work and make money. I use furniture and my apartment to sleep and rest so I can work and make money. Not to mention, well, my paycheck gets taxed federally, and then ANYTHING I buy, really, has sales tax put on it. Man, that's so cruel, I already paid taxes once.

      The essence of the complaints about multiple taxation: "But mom, I cleaned my room last week, why do I have to do it again!"

      Answer: Because it's messy. Taxes are the same thing. Not fun. But they provide a foundation for a safe, civilized society. Quit complaining and pay them. And we'll set them to help make a civilized society. And right now - with an OVERSUPPLY of investment, especially investment that has absolutely no benefit and significant detriment to society - the answer is "Let's tax investors to discourage this unwanted activity." You know, how we tax cigarettes because those health care costs tend to get passed on to the rest of us. Or polluting substances because we, as a whole, have to clean up that mess too.

    10. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My problem is with tax cheats. Every time someone cheats on their taxes the burden increases on people like me who don't.

    11. Re:What's the point? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You're confusing investment in activity with idle savings, which doesn't earn anything anyway because of the actions of the Federal Reserve. Investment in activity is NOT something you want to discourage. That leads to stagnation.

      Taxes are only necessary to fund the core functions of government, and the only beneficial function of government is protecting individual rights. Everything else is tyranny.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    12. Re:What's the point? by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      And guess which Swiss bank Mitt used? UBS

  11. It's... by DenaliPrime · · Score: 1

    Franklin, TN, no Frankin. It's a suburb of Nashville.

    --
    I! Tego Arcana Dei.
    1. Re:It's... by DenaliPrime · · Score: 1

      And then I make a spelling error that I missed in the preview. Yay me. *grumbles and goes for coffee*

      --
      I! Tego Arcana Dei.
    2. Re:It's... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1
      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:It's... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Coffe

      Yup, it did.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    4. Re:It's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y U NO spell good

  12. Bah by M0j0_j0j0 · · Score: 1

    This blackmail makes pretty clear the need for improvement in the US education system , 1M$??????, even to be a criminal education is essential.

  13. This is not the hack I was looking for by erikwestlund · · Score: 0

    I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.

    1. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.

      I think it is the section called 'capital gains' :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

      If we don't want anyone to use/abuse that section anymore, then we should start a grassroots movement to have it removed/amended.

    2. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Paul Ryan's proposed budget wants to remove it. And by "remove it" I mean set the capital gains tax rate to 0%.

    3. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I was hoping for information on the tax hack that allows me to pay 13% in taxes.

      well, that's the thing- the information would probably tell you how to get away with less.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have money, take a risk with it and invest in a company that creates something and that contributes to the economy. If you make a profit, it gets taxed at a lower rate, called capital gains. If you lose money, well that sucks for you!

      If you want to earn a direct exchange payment for your labor, get a job. No risk of losing your money. That is sometimes taxed less than capital gains, and sometimes more.

      The economy benefits tremendously from capital investment... hence its favored tax treatment to compensate for the risk.

      I make most of my income from unearned income -- rents, royalties, and capital gains. I will get NOTHING from social security when I retire (since SS benefits only come from EARNED income), and I can't even use that income to fund an IRA.

      I used to own a company that had a 9 employees that developed software for lawyers. First, the company's profit was taxed so that only about 60% of that money remained to flow to the investor (me). When that profit was paid to me as the owner, I had to pay 40% of that in my own personal taxes. So each $100 of profit the company made, In the end, the governments (federal, state, local) took 64% and I got to keep 36% ... and I was taking all the risk that my investment could go up in smoke.

      And people wonder why others use tax shelters... yeash.

      So I closed the company, fired 9 people (2 were family members), sold the trademarks (capital gains) licensed the code for royalty payments, sold 1 building (capital gains) and rent out the other building for storage to the business next door.

      So both the democrats and the republicans can bite my ass. They both get their power from curried favor from rent-seeking assholes who want pet tax breaks. Throw out the whole tax code, eliminate the IRS and all income taxes, and implement a national consumption tax at the point-of-sale with a prebate to the poor. Then if you get $10/hr, and work 40 hours, you get a check for $400 with no deductions.

    5. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      It's easy. Just be rich

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    6. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So both the democrats and the republicans can bite my ass. They both get their power from curried favor from rent-seeking assholes who want pet tax breaks.

      Such as yourself?

      Throw out the whole tax code, eliminate the IRS and all income taxes, and implement a national consumption tax at the point-of-sale with a prebate to the poor. Then if you get $10/hr, and work 40 hours, you get a check for $400 with no deductions.

      Oh sorry it couldn't be, you're a kind-hearted gentlemen who wants to implement an inherently regressive tax system because you were only personally taking in over 1/3rd of your company's gross profits.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:This is not the hack I was looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you have lots of money, you participate in a fund which trades millions of shares a minute via computer algorithm and high frequency trading. You "invest" substantial amounts of money into random corporations for insubstantial periods of time, skimming massive quantities of profit without much risk, and the only thing you do to 'create' this wealth is "providing liquidity" to the stock market.

      You create nothing, and contribute nothing to the economy at large all while raking in millions of dollars which are taxed at a lower percentage than the income of some random peon who trades his time off of his life to keep a roof over his family's head, who sometimes literally risks his life in the process of performing his work. Simultaneously, your activity on the market, and your lobbying for lesser banking and trading regulations, and lesser taxes on people such as yourself puts the random peon's life savings, pension and 401k at risk. He might loose a substantial part of his life's work due to a hiccup in the market that you or someone like you has caused, but you've got millions in a trust fund, and won't suffer too much.

      That sounds fair, right?

  14. Not a hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document

    This person is called a thief, not a hacker.

    1. Re:Not a hacker by laron · · Score: 1

      Nothing was taken away (well, manybe if they used the office copier they stole paper, toner etc.) I'm sure I've read that copying != stealing somewhere around here.
      Actually that might make it an even worse crime than trespassing, burglary or theft: copyright infringement!

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    2. Re:Not a hacker by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Your point is correct, however that still doesn't explain why this person is being called a "hacker" here.

    3. Re:Not a hacker by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Blackmail should probably be mentioned among the crimes here.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Not a hacker by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      But then they used a computer to talk about it so they're hackers!!!1one!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Not a hacker by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Anything involved digital is called "hacker"? =))

  15. Bitcoins by onyxruby · · Score: 0

    Let's say your sitting on lots of bit coins from one of the recent exchange robberies. How you do you liquidate those since people actually trying to sell bitcoins in any kind of quantity tend to lower the lower the market value of bitcoins pretty quickly?

    Scam! Small scale break in at an office building and you solve your problem. Cash out for a fair chunk of a million dollars when you unload your bitcoins because /someone/ will buy 1 million dollars in bitcoins (FBI sting operation, well meaning rich Mormon, whoever) without losing market value.

    It's brilliant because you know the FBI hasn't got a million dollars in bitcoins just sitting around that they can use in a sting operation and you can get away.

    /proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners. Their just begging for governments to declare open war on bitcoins....

    1. Re:Bitcoins by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      /proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners. Their just begging for governments to declare open war on bitcoins....

      Are you suggesting that government are opposed to those things?

    2. Re:Bitcoins by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      It's been a buying spree for like 1-2 months now. Just look at the volume at http://mtgoxlive.com./ Every time there's a theft, it's played up like some huge news story when in reality, it'd take A LOT of BTC to move the price even $0.50. So if someone dumps off a million worth, it doesn't actually shift the exchange that much. Ok, I should maybe say half a million because the actual data says 1 mil would put it up like $2.50 but I have a feeling buying and selling would go nuts to such a volume due to the change that the price would be unpredictable.

    3. Re:Bitcoins by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners

      As are dollars. There are about 8 million bitcoins at about $11 a piece. That's 88 million dollars worth of bitcoins. That doesn't even come close to the money stolen by ONE GUY at MF Global.

      If you despise thieves, aim your hatred at the finance industry and the politicians that protect them. Bitcoin is negligible compared to these crooks.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Bitcoins by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Certainly dollars are used for all of those things, no question of that. The point is that dollars are typically used for things that aren't those things, like grocery shopping.

       

    5. Re:Bitcoins by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And bitcoin could be used for many other things as well. Wider adoption of bitcoin can only lead to more mundane things being bought and sold with bitcoin. Since any currency will be used by criminals, it's not really relevant to point out that a currency is used by criminals.

      My point is, don't waste effort on small time crooks. Save your outrage for the real criminals, those who run the country and the world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  16. whats he worried about? by johnsnails · · Score: 0

    According to Wikipedia... "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million" Im not kidding... 2 people I admire greatly are collectively worth about $150M, and I can tell you that most of us live just like us day to day (although by choice). One drives a Holden Statesmen and the other a Mazda MX5. They eat plain meals, "meat and 3 vege", show at "Lowes" and live a simple life. Maybe Romney is still in touch even as a successful business man, maybe that helped him get to where he is?

    1. Re:whats he worried about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that he doesn't pay enough tax by far and doesn't spend his cash, effectively vacuuming fiscal life blood from the economy.

      Multiply by a bunch of rich guys, and you get the situation as it stands today. Starvation in America.

    2. Re:whats he worried about? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      You should go read the Rolling Stone story about Romney and Bain. Romney is as far as from the simple, honest businessman persona as he can get if even a part of the history is true.

    3. Re:whats he worried about? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Romney is an asshole. To be fair, the Stone doesn't like Romney at all; but there's not a lot to like. He's a Republican John Kerry.

    4. Re:whats he worried about? by Tora · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What do you think is "enough"?

      I suspect he pays more in taxes than you, based on $$ amount alone.

      --
      tora
    5. Re:whats he worried about? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Here is the issue:
      You need to tax where the money is. The more the money gets concentrated among fewer people, the higher the tax rate for those people have to become.
      Because it's the monitory transactions that generate most of the money. Few people with most of the money means less transactions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:whats he worried about? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I think there is absolute zero to like. His history points towards a presidency where nothing will get done except for himself and a few choice buddies who will kick back to him later in the form of a revolving door job or the like. As I've said many times here, he makes Bush look thoughtful and forthright.

    7. Re:whats he worried about? by JazzLad · · Score: 1
      Regrettably undoing mods by posting, but Mark 12:43-44:

      43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury

      44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

      Or in other words, a man paying $100,000 in taxes when he earned $10M pays less taxes than the man earning $45,000 and pays $10,000. The raw dollar amount spent does not tell the whole story - not even close.

      If "enough" for me to pay in taxes is X% of my earnings, "enough" for him should not be X-Y%. Even moreso if you chose to acknowledge the moral implications as he is paying 'of his abundance' whereas the tax dollars I pay could have purchased a second car for my family or been put away towards college for my children. I do not begrudge (much) paying taxes (primary exception is sales tax on food, collecting this is an evil practice as it only really impacts the poor - I'm looking at you, the State of Utah), it is my duty as a citizen; I do, however begrudge the wealthy exploiting the system to pay a much smaller share than I while at the same time proclaiming that they carry the greater tax burden. It's just dishonest.

      As for Mitt, I respectfully ask you to put your money where your mouth is. You claim to have payed no less than 13%, well the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your father knew this; said T. George Harris in "Romney's Way, A Man and an Idea"

      "He balked when I badgered him for a copy of his latest Form 1040, the Federal Individual Income Tax Return," Harris wrote. "Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much, he argued. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."

      "Stumped by this argument, I was not prepared for the move that it eventually led him to make: He ordered up all the Form 1040's that he and Mrs. Rome had filed over the past twelve years — including those profitable ones from when he saved the American Motors Company from bankruptcy and became a millionaire on the company's stock options."

      I want to like you, Mitt. The promises of Obama that caused me to vote for him have largely not come into fruition (Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open, Patriot Act is still law, TSA is bigger and stronger than ever), but you appear to also be no different. It's no wonder so many are completely disenchanted by the whole system of politics today.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    8. Re:whats he worried about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should go read a Rolling Stone article about a Republican Nominee

      Gee, I wonder what I'll find. Nothing but unbiased, uncompromised truth, I bet. After all, Rolling Stone is entrenched in an industry that honors integrity, ethics, and honesty above all else!

    9. Re:whats he worried about? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There's a lot to like if you're a 19 year old college girl. I mean the man is ready to join the Silver Fox club with Bill Clinton. I happen to not like either men (at all, I have no guy friends) or old people.

    10. Re:whats he worried about? by celle · · Score: 1

      "I suspect he pays more in taxes than you, based on $$ amount alone."

          So you don't know. More BS for /.

  17. Hackers? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Back in my day we used to call people who snuck into buildings and stole things "burgalers". Now days I guess they're called hackers. I guess I should get used to telling the neighborhood kids to get off my lawn.

    1. Re:Hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When "Social Engineering" became a large part of the "Hacker" bag of tricks they moved out of hacking and into scamming. So many people who identify themselves as Hackers are really just people that are scamming others with a computer or for digital information. It's a natural progression that the computer can fall out of the equation or be very loosely associated with the crime that someone still identifies themselves or is Identified as a Hacker. In this case I would guess its the bitcoins and the fact that all that was taken was data that makes them a "Hacker".

    2. Re:Hackers? by MarkGriz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Back in my day we used to call people who snuck into buildings and stole things "burgalers".

      And then they invented spell-check.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    3. Re:Hackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when burglars steal something it's gone. when hackers steal something it's still there.

    4. Re:Hackers? by tgd · · Score: 2

      Back in my day we used to call people who snuck into buildings and stole things "burgalers".

      And then they invented spell-check.

      Maybe he's British. They're always spelling things wrong over there.

  18. Balances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop https://blockchain.info/address/1HeF89wMjC48bWNgWvVo7Wu3RaLW8XVsE8
    Promote https://blockchain.info/address/12AP6iCwRNFQqKLStH3A4b4hw3SL6RaNgB

  19. Two pastebin post - same people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were two separate pastbin posts.

    The first stated papers had been physically copied during a burglary at PWC. There was no randsom demand. They simply stated the papers would be released Sep 28th.

    The second paste said they had accessed the file servers during a break in at PWC and accessed the information this way. The second asked for a randsom.

    There is no evidence the two posts were by the same people.

    This is all too much complexity for most jounalists it seems.

  20. Idiots... by trum4n · · Score: 1

    Using a Xerox IS NOT HACKING. Seriously, people. Calling a THIEF a HACKER? Making real hackers look bad.

  21. Helping no one... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    These hackers are helping no one - except maybe Romney. They make hackers look bad, they give more fuel to the fire that Bitcoins are a criminal haven, and they give rise to suspicions that the Dems are behind this. Thanks for nothing.

  22. They'd release page 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they had Romneys tax return, they'd release a portion of it, so they don't and they don't expect 1 million bitcoins, because nobody would pay it.

    So it's a script kiddie hoax.

  23. Equal hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe someone can hack into Harvard and Columbia and get a few transcripts and legal briefs.

  24. Finally. by DexPleiadian · · Score: 1

    The election has become more interesting than one talking head versus another. Here's hoping this gets even crazier.

  25. there seems to be a discrepency by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    hackers claimed to have stolen Mitt Romney’s tax returns

    and

    someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document

    seem to have a slight discrepancy lol. So they want $1 mil in bitcoins and yet they sent copies to "Democratic and Republican leaders in that county." Oh yes, I'm so sure those will never see the light of day if he pays after they gave them to the democrats. No wonder these people were too stupid to hack it digitally. They're operating this like complete morons.

    1. Re:there seems to be a discrepency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is the files sent to both parties were encrypted. They don't have access to them as of yet.
      Of course, this also means there is no actual proof the files they have in their possession are, in fact, the tax returns.

      Supposedly, once the date comes and goes the keys will get released and both parties will have access at that point.

    2. Re:there seems to be a discrepency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The initial act was merely copyright infringement!

  26. EVERYONE SHOULD TAX DODGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The majority of rich dodge taxes and do whatever they can not to pay. That's how they become and stay rich.
    If regular people started tax dodging the way the rich do, maybe congress would actually start to listen to regular voters.

    1. Re:EVERYONE SHOULD TAX DODGE by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd rather lead by example, somebody's gotta pay taxes right? Besides the work/payoff balance is terrible until you get well into the 6-digits per year range. My dad does it with very middle-class amounts of money and I'm starting to think he enjoys paperwork.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. "Hackers" by Revotron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  28. Double idiots by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

    100,000 BTC is a big portion of the market available. I bet if they bought it all the price would skyrocket.

    1. Re:Double idiots by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2

      100,000 BTC is a big portion of the market available. I bet if they bought it all the price would skyrocket.

      There's a bot in freenode #bitcoin which will answer this question, based on the current depth of the order book. Last time I checked buying $1000000 of bitcoins would push the final price to $15 (from $11), so not exactly skyrocketing. The depth of the market is much greater now than it was last year.

    2. Re:Double idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100,000 BTC is a big portion of the market available. I bet if they bought it all the price would skyrocket.

      There's a bot in freenode #bitcoin which will answer this question, based on the current depth of the order book. Last time I checked buying $1000000 of bitcoins would push the final price to $15 (from $11), so not exactly skyrocketing. The depth of the market is much greater now than it was last year.

      If a single trade pushes the price of some financial product up by 36% on any other exchange in the world, people would call it skyrocketing.

    3. Re:Double idiots by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      If a single trade pushes the price of some financial product up by 36% on any other exchange in the world, people would call it skyrocketing.

      This is Bitcoin we're talking about - a 36% swing isn't as uncommon there as it is for other currencies (although this is becoming less true over time).

    4. Re:Double idiots by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      If the "hackers" were really clever they wouldn't even attempt to collect the 1 million in bitcoins at all. They would wait until Romney bought the bitcoins and use that purchase to take advantage of the bitcoin market itself. Then when the blackmail collapses and Romney puts the bitcoins back on the market, the price would drop and they could take advantage of that as well. And all with little risk. How successful it might be depends on how desparate Romney would be to prevent his tax returns from being made public.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
  29. bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what does Obama want with a million bitcoins?

  30. Easy fix by slapout · · Score: 1

    Now the other side just has to steal Obama's college records and threaten to release them if Romney's tax records get released.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Easy fix by coinreturn · · Score: 2

      Now the other side just has to steal Obama's college records and threaten to release them if Romney's tax records get released.

      Except Obama's college records are a true "who cares?" and Romney's tax records could show the world he pays a tiny fraction of his income in taxes, that he took advantage of tax amnesty for cheats, etc.

  31. One MILLION Doll... I mean BitCoins. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    I hear he was going to ask for a billion, but why ask for a billion when you can ask for a million? *puts pinky finger to mouth*

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  32. Paper copies?? by datdjrobp · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I'd buy into PWC having paper copies of tax returns laying around. I'd imagine everything has been scanned/digitized...which would actually require "hacking" and not "burglarizing".

  33. Deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the second time Romney's had his tax returns stolen by anonymous. I read this before over a month ago:
    http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/

    Either he's one seriously unlucky presedential candidate or perhaps (just perhaps) this is a hoax. Hopefully the secret service do the 5 min Google search that the news decided would be a waste of time.

  34. +1 by Mordermi · · Score: 1

    No mod points, so you have to settle for this.

  35. Is this why I don't trust the UUID statements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason 12 M UUID's on a FBI computer? Bitcoin suspends a certain type of payment, from an article several days ago, here, several pages ago. And now we hear of a blackmail attempt, And probably in the near future, you will see the prepay apple card being limited in size or amount, per owner because some "terrorist" used a apple card to pay his bill for gunpowder, or some equal trade for some, and people wounder?

  36. You should do some reading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. Read about about hedge fund managers are turning their fees (that should be taxed as income) into fund investments (that are taxed at 15% after 3 years).

    Let me explain. Lets say a manager has $1000000 invested in the fund, along with hundreds of millions of other peoples money. His fees earned for managing the fund for a year are $500000. Instead of paying earned income tax on that $500k, the fees go straight into the fund as his investment. Assuming absolutely no other return from the investment, after 3 years he pays long term capital gains tax (15%) on that $500k and is free to withdraw it with no further taxation.

    The difference between ~39% and 15% is staggering.

    The rich can do this - they have enough wealth elsewhere to live for those 3 years. The rest of us actually need each years earnings to live. The beauty of the system is that should the long term capital gains tax be too high for their liking they can just wait for a republican president and lobby for a lower rate or a capital gains tax holiday, during which time they'll pay the even lower rates on as much of their amassed investments as possible and reset their basis.

    1. Re:You should do some reading. by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The rich can do this - they have enough wealth elsewhere to live for those 3 years. The rest of us actually need each years earnings to live.

      Only because you're an ignorant moron who spends all his energy bitching about the rich, instead of making himself rich. Capital gains investments aren't reserved for the rich, stupid ass, they are accessible to anyone with 5 or more brain cells. (Do you qualify?) How about learning some financial discipline and make yourself rich, instead of bitching and moaning about how you "need" to be a wage slave in order to survive? Your SHITTY ATTITUDE is why you are a FAILURE, not the machinations of the "rich."

  37. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're all really stupid ...

    It sure looks like it. Being a moderate, the "base" looks to me like a drooling, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging Bible thumping mass of morons.

    When Ryan was in Congress, he brought up a very important issue: Medicare will be in trouble and some tough choices will have to be made - not if, when.

    Now as a VP candidate, all that is out the door and he's accusing Obama of doing what he originally suggested. And when someone asks about it, he does the typical Republican thing of "Abortion! All childbearing aged women are fornicating, getting pregnant, and aborting all their babies!" Of course, the "base" gets into a rage and forgets the shenanigans.

    And as far as fiscal reponsibility is concerned, the Reps won't cut Defense spending - but everything else can go. And taxes will be cut - especially for the $1 million+ per year crowd.

    Here's my prediction if the Reps get into power in '13. Massive increases in spending - mostly Defense - tax cuts, and borrowing out the ass like they did from '01 through '08.

    I guaranty it. And if anyone mentions the hypocrisy, they'll just say "Look abortion! Gun control! Muslims and sharia law!"

    And people wonder why I vote Libertarian and "throw my vote away".

    Don't get me started on the Dems.....

  38. Wrong by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "extra tax on money that has already been taxed."
    no, it isn't.
    It's a tax on the interest earned; which isn't already taxed money.

    "Even though you've worked for 20 years to save that money,"
    wrong. You didn't not work AT ALL for that money gained on interest.

    It's a tax on INCOME, not money you saved. And it was higher during the most prosperous times in America.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Wrong by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      It's a tax on INCOME, not money you saved. And it was higher during the most prosperous times in America.

      And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:Wrong by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.

      Yeah, what side of the Laffer Curve are we on again? Thought so...

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    3. Re:Wrong by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.

      Yeah, what side of the Laffer Curve are we on again? Thought so...

      Your ignorance is showing. This is about Capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Capital gains has been played with so many times that the revenue reaction is clear and well-understood, not like wild unknown somewhere between 0% and 100%.

      If you dismiss the evidence then you must be anti-science.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:Wrong by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.

      I think you are looking at the meaning of earned income from a different angle. The angle you are looking from is from those who believe that earning from money after taxed should not be taxed again. To me, the value of capital/principal at the time it is used to make more money has no meaning in taxes. Using your example, making 8% does not account inflation of the year which for you may think it is the loss. Though, the gross profit (not deduct by inflation) is still fully qualified for being taxed because it is what is more.

      I am neither a millionaire nor a dead beat. I own my own home. Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.

    5. Re:Wrong by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.

      My argument is that taxes are too high, the government has control of too much money, that social engineering via tax policy is financial tyranny and a circumvention of Constitutional constraints, and the Federal Reserve and its owners are criminal enterprises robbing the American people.

      Is that clear enough?

      Oh - inflation is theft, too, purposely orchestrated by the Federal Reserve system, and hurts the poor the most, but also affects the middle class.

      Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.

      Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need. Because that's next, and it would be in place now but they have to weaken the middle class more first.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:Wrong by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      My argument is that taxes are too high,

      Ok, fair enough.

      Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need.

      That's what I am doing. You you think that paying taxes is to weaken middle class is really stupid. If the tax money is being used correctly, the effect is not to weaken anyone but strengthen the whole country. That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.

    7. Re:Wrong by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.

      Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.

      And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy than the millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    8. Re:Wrong by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.

      And rig the game is directly from taxes? Who is getting richer from taxes? Is government has pile of money laying around because of taxes? No, because the way they spend the money that I am concerned, not the amount of money I pay into. So you still haven't clarified about why hiding away from taxes is better than concerning about how the money (taxes) is spent.

      And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy

      Huh? What's wrong with give money when I voluntarily to do so and I feel obligate to? Did I say I believe that bureaucrats can (and/or will) to do a better job to manipulate economy? Didn't you understand about my concern of how the money is spent? Does it say anything about manipulating economy? there are 2 different things -- manipulate private economy and spend money to develop the country. Because people like you always assume what I will be from your own thought, you will always be blinded by your own assumption. Because I feel that I am giving out my fair share to the government, I am now a bureaucrat slave? Assume whatever you want, my concern is still what it is and I believe it should be for everyone -- where and how money should be spent to make the whole better, not why I should not pay taxes because I will give away too much money.

      millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.

      Be more specific about the evidence. If it is really the prosperity way, why certain parts of the world that use the similar practice (acting in their own self-interest with their own money) are not that prosperity at all? To me, it is rather be selfish than prosperity.

  39. Foxification... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

    Is he an American? Some people are saying that he was born in Mexico. Why hasn't he produced a REAL birth certificate?

    It is also being argued that he will be the first Mexican national to become president of the United States with the purpose of returning all lands taken from Mexico in our wars with them. Some have gone even further and claimed that he does not produce his tax returns because he has been filing them in Mexico, not the US...

    There, I Foxified it for you...

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  40. HAHAHA LULZ HO! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    This is great, break out the popcorn!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  41. Actually, I have them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will release them to the general public unless I receive a BILLION dollars, in small, unmarked, nonconsecutive Monopoly pink 5's, yellow 10's, green 20's and blue 50's. Also I want the racecar, and the deeds to Boardwalk and Park Place, and I want them NOW!!!!

    Bitcoins... seriously? Why not ask for REAL money?

    Honestly, if anyone really had them, and there was anything in them really damning or embarassing they'd Wikileak them immediately. So either they don't really have them or there's nothing interesting in them. Yawn... next story.

  42. TAX RETURNS FROM WHAT MONEY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that the big difference between Romney, a Republican and the Democrats is that Romney earned his money at Bain Capital by being the hachet man who largely fired the bloated middle management at companies so that they could make a profit. Our Black Bernie Madoff has borrowed $1.5 trillion a year whille President, to make his budget which is causing 10% inflation a year,now. Will Romney, if elected, fire the teachers union, the EPA, the Dept of Education, cut Welfare, cut Medicaid, etc. so that the Federal budget is balanced? Working people already give 65% of their income to the Fed, State, and County government. Your taxes start at the Corporate level with whopping 34% Corporate tax, tremendous property taxes, licensing tax, etc. money that could go to you. Then you pay 14% SS tax, 15% Fed tax, 4% Medicare tax, 5% State Tax, then the price of every product at Walmart is doubled by taxes. Gas taxes, licensing taxes, etc. most of your income is taxed away. Jobs are being outsourced to China. What are you doing about this? mensunion org For some interesting reading, "The Healthcare Guide for Republicans", ebook at Amazon or Apple

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. That was a lot of paper by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    If they made copies, given how complex Romney's taxes likely are, they probably used enough copier paper for this to amount to grand theft.

    Which is why I also disbelieve the story. They would have needed a cargo van at minimum and making copies would have taken them all night and into the day.

  45. The question about Romney's Returns: by nullchar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did Mitt Romney accept the IRS Tax Amnesty program in 2009? Did he disclose offshore accounts used as tax havens?

    Was Romney part of these 14,700 Americans?

  46. Digital Filing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though the IRS digitized returns... do they still keep paper copies?

    Or at least scanned them in then destroyed the originals.

    I know the gooberment is lagging in technology... but are they THAT far behind??

  47. Red flag in a bullfight? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Yep, the bovines will charge at the red flag while the matador bleeds them to death. I think they learned this from the Obama birther thing.

    In other words, how much time is being wasted persuing something of no value? I wager his returns are clean. He'll release them at a time he choses, in order to maximize the strategic value of releasing them. Some people will scratch their heads and ask, "there's nothing here, why didn't he release earlier?". They won't consider all the time that could have been spent attacking on other fronts. The best time for him to release it might be just before the election.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  48. You aren't running for POTUS either by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

    Even Santorum released four years of tax returns, and he wasn't even the nominee.

    http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:You aren't running for POTUS either by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What does Santorum have to do with "everyone else"? Santorum is a single individual. If the original poster wanted to say that all other Presidential candidates had released their tax returns, then he should have said that.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  49. Tell me again how private citizen Romney... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    gets taxpayer funded secret service protection for his tax return privacy? ?Where do I sign up for that? Do you purchase such government services with a check, money order or cash to the right places?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  50. Cite please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://lenpenzo.com/blog/id1510-18-fast-facts-you-didnt-know-about-social-security-numbers.html

    17. Social Security numbers are not reused after the card holder dies.

    do you have something to cite that contradicts the above?

  51. Old Bait and Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thieves don't actually want bitcoins, they have them and want a market to sell them back at inflated prices.
    Once they try to gather the ransom, they sell off the bitcoins and get their reward that way.

  52. Here's how to fake a Romney hacker message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They used a stupid verification code... I wonder what the next lines will be?

    https://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=42b567700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
    "However, all these considerations did not deter me from the path of duty; the moment I understood the will of my Heavenly Father, I felt a determination to go at all hazards, believing that He would support me by His almighty power, and endow me with every qualification that I needed; and although my family was dear to me, and I should have to leave them almost destitute, I felt that the cause of truth, the Gospel of Christ, outweighed every other consideration” (Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 104)."

  53. Doesn't anyone here watch Sherlock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, the one where Moriarity breaks into where the Crown Jewels, the Bank of England and a Prison just to show the world he could.

    This isn't about the million dollars folks - this is one giant advertisement for how much more secure and anonymous Bitcoins are, probably to pump up the value for someone who already holds a bunch. If they really have the goods (the tax papers), it might be one of the more clever ways ever discovered to convert information into money, no mater which way the SS and Romney play it.

    If Romney does pay, he looses.
    If Romney doesn't pay, he looses.
    Welcome to the new world! Popcorn indeed, this could get interesting!

    Strange that it's a million dollars in Bitcoins, rather than one million Bitcoins (about 10% of what's out there, 4% of the total amount ever).
    Romney's taxes for 2011 were $3.2 million. I wonder what they were when he was actually working (the real numbers, not the fake tax return numbers).

  54. So what's the big deal? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    I mean, unless Rommney has done something illegal, who cares what his tax returns are?

    We all know he's a multi-millionaire...he's going to have lots of money, and like every American, he is going to likely try to take advantage of EVERY legal tax option opened to everyone.

    If nothing, it might illustrate all the deductions and loopholes that are available, and could likely all be closed.

    Hell, might be something to run on...

    But why criticize anyone for following the letter of the law and trying to keep as much money as you legally can from the tax man? I mean, that's what those deductions and laws are set up for.

    Does anyone here from the US NOT take any deductions you are entitled to?

    Is there anyone here altruistic enough to pay more than they legally have to?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:So what's the big deal? by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a gimmick. It's right up there with having a Philly cheesesteak in Gino's versus Pat's. American politics is filled with those kinds of traps.

      All the issue is there to serve is to suggest Romney is "not one of you" and fits the stereotype of "rich white republican."

      Truth is, Obama is rich, too. You can't really do federal politics without being quite wealthy.

      Time wasted talking about tax returns, or birth certificates, or whatever is time spent not talking about the facts. And when you look at FACTS, both Republicans AND Democrats have each done massive harm to this country over the past 80 years.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:So what's the big deal? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama is rich, too

      A fine example of whataboutery. The issue is not that Romney is wealthy - it's a matter of public record that his wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined - but that he may have been illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks, and took advantage of the 2009 amnesty.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    3. Re:So what's the big deal? by Applekid · · Score: 0

      Obama is rich, too

      A fine example of whataboutery. The issue is not that Romney is wealthy - it's a matter of public record that his wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined - but that he may have been illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks, and took advantage of the 2009 amnesty.

      2009 Tax Amnesty? That would put it square within the 111th Congress. You know, the one that had Democrat majority in both the House, Senate, and had Obama in the White House to sign anything they wanted. And, if it's amnesty, then how is what happened then exactly illegal?

      You're obviously a smart guy, and you're free to vote (or not) for whomever you wish. I just hate seeing people fall into the typical political traps.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:So what's the big deal? by cduffy · · Score: 2

      And, if it's amnesty, then how is what happened then exactly illegal?

      If an action one took was legal at the time it was done, one doesn't need an amnesty.

    5. Re:So what's the big deal? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2

      [2009 Tax Amnesty passed by] 111th Congress. You know, the one that had Democrat majority in both the House, Senate

      Lol. So it's the Democrats fault!? The whataboutery-foo is strong in this one. You think they should not have permitted the amnesty? And put the criminals in prison?

      if it's amnesty, then how is what happened then exactly illegal?

      I guess you don't understand what amnesty means? To re-cap : following a leak by a whistle-blower, Swiss bank UBS gets sued by the US to release their full list of tax criminals' names. The IRS is more interested in the money than putting thousands of the rich and/or famous behind bars, so offers an amnesty - those tax evaders who voluntarily fess up, report their fraud and pay what's due are not prosecuted.

      The tax evasion was and is illegal. Amnesty from prosecution does not magically make the previous behaviour legal. And even if it did, the issue for Romney, if the allegation is true, is that he willfully and deliberately committed massive tax fraud, knowing at the time that it was illegal. That is massively damaging whichever side of the fence you're on. (And by the way, I don't really have a horse in this race because I'm not permitted to vote in that election. If I could vote, I cannot imagine that I would be persuaded to vote Obama).

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    6. Re:So what's the big deal? by LanMan04 · · Score: 0

      Truth is, Obama is rich, too. You can't really do federal politics without being quite wealthy.

      Yeah, but Romney has literally 17x the net worth of Obama. More than an order of magnitude.

      Seems like apples and oranges to me.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    7. Re:So what's the big deal? by Applekid · · Score: 2

      [2009 Tax Amnesty passed by] 111th Congress. You know, the one that had Democrat majority in both the House, Senate

      Lol. So it's the Democrats fault!? The whataboutery-foo is strong in this one. You think they should not have permitted the amnesty? And put the criminals in prison?

      Since I don't like Romney, if they did not permit the amnesty and threw him in jail it would have worked out better IMO. :)

      I guess what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is why was all this tough talk about punishing wall street and fat cat bankers if they're just going to give amnesty out and let them pay the difference and not call foul. Armed with both majority AND a rubber stamp and that's the best they could do? If that's not evidence of the 2nd half original premise, that the Democrats and Republicans are both screwing with the public, I don't know what is. The 1st half is that it's a stupid political game to play. So Romney is evil because he's a rich guy and tax evader? Well, not too long ago they gave everyone a pass, so why the change of heart? It's a game. It's just as stupid as people still demanding to see Obama's birth certificate.

      I'd much rather see talk about what each candidate intends to do with the presidency, rather than "vote for me because that other guy's a real dickhead". Seems the 2004 election really made this the status quo on political discourse and, well, I'm just disappointed. But maybe I'm just too young, I'm sure this kind of crap probably went on in years gone by.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    8. Re:So what's the big deal? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2

      I'd much rather see talk about what each candidate intends to do with the presidency, rather than "vote for me because that other guy's a real dickhead".

      I totally agree with your sentiment, but I still think there's a huge difference between "the other guy's a dickhead" and "the other guy engaged in illegal behaviour"

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    9. Re:So what's the big deal? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Romney has literally 17x the net worth of Obama. More than an order of magnitude.

      And, exactly...what is wrong with that? Are we against success these days? Isn't that the American dream...success....as much as you can attain?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:So what's the big deal? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.

      The tax question goes to the question of did he take every slimeball loophole possible, or did he file as intended by the spirit of the law? His father made a very public point of doing the latter.

      It's widely known that George Romney released 12 years of taxes. What's not as widely known is that when he did, he released it to a journalist with Look magazine. When he did, the folks that poured over his returns noticed something:

      "Auditors notice two unusual facts in these returns. First, the Romneys have never made much use of tax loopholes, such as depletion allowances, that are taken for granted by most people who reach their bracket. Second, over the 12-year period, they have donated an average of 19 percent of each year's adjusted gross income to their church."

      http://itcouldhappenhere.com/blog/romneys-ryan-timing-a-taxing-matter/

      The question isn't does Mitt Romney do anything illegal (though the Dems would love it if he did), the question is do his tax returns make him look unethical?

    11. Re:So what's the big deal? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      And, exactly...what is wrong with that? Are we against success these days? Isn't that the American dream...success....as much as you can attain?

      Oh, nothing at all, but the post I responded to basically said "they're both wealthy", which I think is a bit of a false equivalence.

      It's like saying that New York and Tokyo are both far from Washington DC, for varying values of far.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    12. Re:So what's the big deal? by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      Romney is not even the most wealthy of recent candidates. John and Teresa Kerry were/are worth nearly $1 billion -- though John earned very little of that. Clinton and Gore did not become extremely wealthy until after they left office, but does it matter if a person is rich before or after they become president or vice-president?

      Romney would probably be a lot richer if he did not donate so much to his church and to other charities.

      When McCain was vetting Romney and others as prospective vice-presidents in 2008, Romney provided several years' tax returns to the McCain campaign. Those who saw those returns have said publicly that there was nothing there that would have disqualified Romney. McCain really didn't like Romney, so if he had something that could be used against Romney, he would have made sure at least one of the primary opponents had some of the information. None of them received anything like that.

      When one considers the recent returns that Romney has made public, and the earlier ones he provided to McCain, most of the returns from the last ten years have been reviewed, with nothing illegal or even questionable being found.

    13. Re:So what's the big deal? by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      No, but the narrative is that he's not just successful, but a ruthless plutocrat. The narrative (true or not) is that he's not just successful, but he'll do anything to make a buck, moral or not.



      That's the Obama narrative, because Obama cannot run on his own record. It's been widely known for more than a year that Obama would run a totally negative campaign against whichever Republican was nominated. Romney was the strongest of the potential GOP candidates, so their negative campaign against Romney is orders of magnitude greater than if Santorum or someone else had been nominated. Of course, even after months of relentless negativity, Romney is still even with Obama in the polls.

      The question now is, after all that they've thrown at Romney, do they have anything left? Or will they just keep making up stuff, hoping the mainstream media repeats the accusations without questioning the veracity?
    14. Re:So what's the big deal? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

      When McCain was vetting Romney and others as prospective vice-presidents in 2008, Romney provided several years' tax returns to the McCain campaign. Those who saw those returns have said publicly that there was nothing there that would have disqualified Romney

      McCain saw the returns in 2008. The amnesty was in 2009.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    15. Re:So what's the big deal? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And, exactly...what is wrong with that? Are we against success these days? I

      Are you for attacking straw men and trying to move the goalposts? Yes you can!

  55. Morani fhtagn! IA! IA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't like him because he's a fucking cultist.

  56. Polyandry as well? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Of course, unlike Obama, neither Mitt Romney's father nor his grandfather were polygamists. Both were married to the same woman for their entire lives.

    Wow, so Mitt's mom was also his grandma? Man, that's some messed-up family dynamics right there. But cool on them for living by "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", and practicing polyandry (multiple husbands for one wife) as well as polygamy (multiple wives for one husband).

    :-P

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  57. I think you're missing some nuance. by raehl · · Score: 2

    As a major presidential candidate, he should have less right to privacy than Joe User.

    As a major presidential candidate, he has the same RIGHT to privacy.

    However, he also has greater CONSEQUENCES for exercising that right - voters may not vote for him if he won't release his tax returns.

    Whether his taxes should be released or not is Mitt's decision. Whether people vote for him or not is their decision.

  58. Wahn meeeeeeleeeeeon Bitcoins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have nothing of value to add here. I just keep hearing this ringing in my head:

    Wahn. Meeeeeeleeeeeon. Bitcoins. Wa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaa (sound of thunder in background)

  59. You're mistaken. by raehl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reasoning behind lower taxes for long term capital gains is that it lowers taxes for rich people, and Republicans support lowering taxes for rich people.

    "Encouraging investment in activities that create jobs" is a lie that's used to sell it to those who don't benefit from the tax cut.

    And it's obvious that it's a lie, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to encourage investment. *ALL* money gets invested NO MATTER WHAT. If you create a new company, you've invested your money. If you REFUSE to create a new company and just stash your money in a bank account, then the bank will loan that money to someone else who will invest it. It gets invested either way.

    About the only way to NOT invest money is to hide it in your mattress, and there is no tax rate short of 100% where it would be preferable to hide your money in a mattress instead of a bank account.

    The lower rate is nothing other than a tax break for already having money.

    1. Re:You're mistaken. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's obvious that it's a lie, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to encourage investment.

      Encouraging and discouraging investments are indeed possible. If the government makes investments more expensive via increased taxes, investments are discouraged. If government makes investments less expensive via decreased or no taxes, investments are encouraged.

      I agree with the idea that, unless you hide your money under your mattress, your money is being invested. Although, since you aren't directly investing it, you aren't reaping the full benefit. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the fact that government taxation affects how much the public invests into the economy.

      And, given our economy, we really ought not discourage any possible avenues of growth. Then again, it's this sort of backward approach to our economy that got us here to begin with.

    2. Re:You're mistaken. by jittles · · Score: 1

      That's not always true. There was a huge problem in 2008 with banks hording cash, closing peoples credit cards, etc. They had money, but would not loan it to people. Even businesses had a hard time getting liquid assets. There are times when money is not invested, and certainly banks could not invest 100% of the money deposited anyway because they must keep a certain amount of cash at hand, as required by FDIC. Plus lets be honest, a rich person could buy gold, and other raw materials to horde cash. Sure the money they spent would end up in someone else's pocket but they would be hording natural resources that have monetary value. So yes, it does make sense to encourage people to invest in corporations and other ventures, instead of hording gold, platinum, diamonds, jewelry, or other non-monetary forms of wealth.

    3. Re:You're mistaken. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      That's not always true. There was a huge problem in 2008 with banks hording cash, closing peoples credit cards, etc. They had money, but would not loan it to people. Even businesses had a hard time getting liquid assets.

      Sure sure...but that's because the banks were completely insolvent. The only reason BOA and Citi are still around is that the Treasury department bailed their asses out with trillions in zero interest loans. Their "way out" is to sit on every penny and try to think of new ways to gouge their customers until they are solvent again.

    4. Re:You're mistaken. by jittles · · Score: 1

      Not all of the banks had that issue, and I believe BofA's problem was that the Fed forced them to buy a few other banks that poisoned them, though I could be thinking of another major bank. And all banks were forced to take money, even if they did not need it. So some banks held on to cash even though they had billions in bailout money they did not want. Those banks repaid their debt in around 6 months, I believe.

  60. In what sense of the word is this 'hacking'? by Abroun · · Score: 1

    A shame to see /. contribute to the further dilution of the term.

  61. IT'S A HOAX by Megane · · Score: 1, Informative

    From http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/07/30/why-i-dont-believe-that-anonymous-hacked-the-irs-for-romneys-returns/ :

    (Author's note: Apparently, some folks are upset that I didn't explicitly state that this original story appeared on a satirical site - though I clearly linked to it in the piece. The point of my piece was to point out that it couldn't possibly be true - not to "debunk" a satire. It was meant to remind folks not to simply share without reading - also in the original story - and not to merely rely on a headline or a sentence in an email for your news. Those of you who stop by the blog regularly get that and I appreciate it. I'm not going to change the original piece but I am going to clarify this in big red letters at the top so that the rest of you can sleep a little better.)

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:IT'S A HOAX by dhammond · · Score: 1

      It may in fact be a hoax, but the article you link to is from over a month ago and appears to be totally unrelated to the current story.

    2. Re:IT'S A HOAX by Megane · · Score: 1

      It links to the original article, which was missing on the 6th (so I couldn't link to it) but is now back. Notice that the title graphic to that site says "News That's Almost Reliable"? It's an Onion-style fake news site. Today's headlines are "Paul Ryan claims to be a descendant of Jesus Christ", "Democrats put God in Platform, adding Odin, Zeus, Mothra", and "GOP Celebrates New ‘PreSin’ Pregnancy Prevention Pill".

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:IT'S A HOAX by Megane · · Score: 1

      Original article link got eaten by /. and I didn't notice in preview: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/07/28/anonymous-hacks-irs-database-publishes-romney-tax-returns/

      And I see that they're not exactly equal-opportunity satirists. Everything on there is about Romney and Ryan, with a random Limbaugh story thrown in for variety. So Joe Biden isn't funny enough for them or what?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:IT'S A HOAX by dhammond · · Score: 1

      The point is that it's not the same story. The story you refer to is, as you point out, a satirical story that was not taken seriously by anyone except the most gullible. The more recent story was, according to many news outlets, being investigated by the secret service.

  62. A label is a label by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    You don't graduate Summa Cum Laude (with highest honors) with a D lurking in your transcript.

    Why not? The college could easily have thought f it as an "honorary" Summa Cum Laude. There's no need for higher grades to have entered the picture. The college is the one that choses to give out such honors based on whatever criteria they decide.

    His Harvard Law Review writings do not reveal a person with "very high" grades.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A label is a label by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      His Harvard Law Review writings do not reveal a person with "very high" grades.

      Honestly we don't even know on most of those, because the majority of those are sealed too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:A label is a label by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Except we know what Harvard's standards are: "The degree summa cum laude is for those who have attained ninety percent on the general scale, or have received Highest Honors in any department, and carries with it the assignment of an oration on the list of Commencement parts." If anything, Harvard is likely to have upped the scale in the century and a half they've been awarding honors.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  63. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Obama was pressured by the conspiracy nuts to make his BC public so its only fair that Romney releases his tax returns.

  64. Mainstream Democrats won't use it? Right! by Nova+Express · · Score: 1

    The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means

    Oh, you mean the same way no one used Joe the Plumber's tax returns in 2008? And remember, this was just some guy who dared to as Obama a question, not the Republican Presidential nominee. They'll use them in a Chicago minute.

    Or like how no one in the media would use Jack Ryan's sealed divorce records when the Ombama for Senate campaign illegally leaked them in 2004?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  65. Operating a copier is "hacking" ? ? ? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    "..someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document.."
    Well, if operating a copying machine equates to "hacking," then even those draft-dodging whoremongers of the US Secret Service should be able to catch them for let us never forget the history of the US Secret Service's incremental improvement: after four USSS types on Nixon's presidential detail almost drowned in Biscayne Bay 'cause none of them could swim, the US Secret Service installed a swimming pool at their training center, and now all US SS doods are taught how to swim......

  66. The Romney Directive by sgt_doom · · Score: 0
    The Romney Directive

    The Romney/Ryan campaign ordered the Democratic Party to insert new language in their campaign plank: praising the lord and recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

    The Democratic Party immediately capitulated!

    No doubt those 750,000 American workers who lost their jobs over the past six months are now filled with hope for change? The crucial question is, was that Romney’s first directive to the Obama administration?

    We think not.

    Late in the Bush administration, the banker whistleblower, Bradley Birkinfeld, flew from UBS, Switzerland, to Washington, D.C., armed with a list of American super-rich tax dodgers, and on that list appeared the name of Willard Mitt Romney.

    After Obama was elected president, the Obama administration prosecuted Birkenfeld into jail, and although UBS was fined for those tax dodgers, they essentially buried that list.

    Of course, among the names on that list of super-rich tax dodgers there probably appeared the names of the financial backers of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Mitt Romney, but we are certain that Romney’s name was featured.

    Anybody still unsure as to the obvious orchestration of American presidential elections?

    All you faux crats out there, you vile rightwingers who dare call yourselves “progressives” --- stand ready for the next Romney directive!

    We true progressives shall cast our vote for the authentic democrat, Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.

    Affirmative on Jill Stein, negative on Obamney!

  67. What is it that TPTB are always saying to us? by sconeu · · Score: 1

    "If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear!"

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  68. The suspicion is there WAS illegal activity by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I mean, unless Rommney has done something illegal, who cares what his tax returns are?

    That's the core of this : the suspicion is that Romney was one of the many thousands who took advantage of the Treasury's 2009 amnesty for those illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  69. almost like they're partisan in their 'outrage'? by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    I don't recall this sort of ire by the outraged 'information wants to be free' community when Obama refused (and continues to refuse) access to :

    - Obama/Dunham marriage license - Not released (if one exists)
    - Obama/Dunham divorce - Released but incomplete (by independent investigators)
    - Obama Sr. INS file - Released
    - Noelani Kindergarten records - Records lost
    - Soetoro/Dunham marriage license - Not released
    - Anna Soetoro/Dunham passport records - Released, but key years are missing
    - Soetoro adoption records - Not released
    - Fransiskus Assisi School School application - Released (by independent investigators)
    - Punahou School application - Missing
    - Punahou School records - Not released
    - Noelani 3rd Grade records - Not released
    - Soetoro/Dunham divorce - Released (by independent investigators)
    - Selective Service Registration - Released (by independent investigators) - Under suspicion
    - Social Security Numbers - Released (by independent investigators) - Under suspicion
    - Occidental College records - Not released
    - Financial Aid Records - Not released
    - Passport - Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama's terrorism and intelligence adviser
    - Columbia College records - Not released
    - Columbia thesis - "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" - Not released
    - Harvard College records - Not released
    - Harvard Law Review articles - None
    - Illinois Bar Records - Not released
    - Baptism certificate - None
    - Medical records - Not released
    - Illinois State Senate records - None
    - Illinois State Senate schedule - Lost
    - Law practice client list - Not released
    - University of Chicago scholarly articles - None
    - White House Visitors list - Incomplete to the point of worthless
    - The Blagojevich Interview - judge denies access to the FBI report
    - The Osama bin Laden photos - sealed by Obama

    And last but not least:

    - Original, vault copy birth certificate - Not released (lawyersâ(TM) defense fees greater than $2,900,000 .. a REAL birth certificate is $15)
    - Certification of Live Birth - Released - Suspected Counterfeit
    - Certificate of Live Birth - Released - Suspected Counterfeit
    - Amended Certification of Live Birth - Released - Suspected Counterfeit

    --
    -Styopa
  70. $1,000,000 in bitcoin by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    is like $1,000,000 in marked bills. The history of each bitcoin is kept. One wonders if there's a bitcoin laundry large enough.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  71. Nice shot man. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if they can just find Obama's unforged birth certificate, we'll be all set.

  72. +1 Informative by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

    Oh! Now I get it. That makes a lot more sense. (Still shouldn't happen, but I finally understand why it's possible.) So you do pay income tax on your income, even if they pay you in stocks, but not until the market value of that payment is known (i.e. you sell it). In the mean time, dividends are investment income, and loans against the holdings are just shuffling your own accounts. If you need to sell off some of them to cover interest on the loan, then that wouldn't count as income either because the loan interest is a deduction and exactly equal to the income. Eventually someone will need to sell a bunch to pay off the principal of the loan, assuming there is enough value left in the stocks to cover it, but you can save that as a pick-me-up bonus to make you feel better some year when you took losses on something else.

    Thanks!

    1. Re:+1 Informative by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So you do pay income tax on your income, even if they pay you in stocks, but not until the market value of that payment is known (i.e. you sell it).

      No, not quite. You pay income tax when you acquire the shares, not when you sell; and it's calculated according to then-current market price of those shares at the point you acquire them.

      What I rather meant is that when you get a stock award, it typically doesn't vest right away - a typical arrangement would be when it starts vesting in a year after being granted, and then vest over the term of five years, so 20% each year, so long as you're still employed there. And you only pay income tax on that when it vests (and calculate based on the price then), not on when it was awarded to you. Again, the moment that counts is when the stock is actually in your hands, not when it's merely promised to you later.

      Eventually someone will need to sell a bunch to pay off the principal of the loan, assuming there is enough value left in the stocks to cover it, but you can save that as a pick-me-up bonus to make you feel better some year when you took losses on something else.

      The trick is to spread it out long enough that you don't have to sell them until you die (i.e. live the rest of your life off the loan). In that case, if you've set everything up properly, your spouse and/or children inherit both the loan and the stock collateral, but they don't have to pay any income or capital gains tax on the stock. So they sell it off, only pay capital gains on the difference between when they acquired it (i.e. when you died) and when they sold it, and repay the loan. In the end, no-one has paid any income tax.

      Of course, this needs a truly huge collateral to borrow against to get anywhere. As in, hundreds of millions of dollars.

  73. birth certificate by noh8rz9 · · Score: 1

    bah, tax returns, schmax returns. what I want to know is, when will he release his birth certificate!

    --
    let's have a conversation! let me know what you think.
  74. My bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all bullshit and right now someone in Nigeria is patentlly waiting for his million bucks in bit coins...

  75. Re:The truth behind truths. by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    A masterful example of Poe's Law. I can't tell if you're serious or satirical.

  76. flat tax idea -- Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “FIX THE PROBLEM NOT THE SYMPTOMS”
    The US taxpayer must stand up for optimization and simplification of the US taxation system. Simplification and centralization of the IRS is just the first step.
    Save the US taxpayer the billions of dollars in the IRS overhead to manage the multi-million pages of Internal Revenue Service regulations, fees, audits, and other overhead.
    Why do I bring this up? I propose disruptive positive economic measures as the world should advance and endure disruptive technology. Adopting an economic disruption solution is the only way to solve the US economy. Let me explain the disruption plan and let the readers hold their breath. This approach is not a slippery slope. The following can be provided into a constructive brain team and think tank and moved to executive order within six months of adoption. Just consider that no one loses their home, their jobs, and their livelihood. They are merely transformed into a new mold whether they like it or not.
    In the past few weeks, the Obama propaganda PAC machine has been saying Mitt Romney did not pay his fair share of taxes. His reported income in 2010 was $20 million dollars. His tax rate was 14%. As a farmer with basic math skills means that is roughly $2.8 million in taxes paid. To me, $2.8 million in taxes paid is substantial for anyone. I am a small business owner and median to low income wage earner, taxpayer, home owner (well the banks owns it), and future political office candidate.
    Over the past few decades, as a citizen of Oregon, my home state, and then Washington, Kansas, Virginia, and Missouri, and Arizona; I have been amazed at the level and depth of taxation and confusion for the taxpayer. I am reasonable with math, forms, common sense, and paying my fair share. What I take argument and disagreement is the confusion on what is enough paid as a tax payer.
    The amount a US citizen should pay the US government aka the IRS is very confusing these days. I would love to take a simplification approach and stand my ground and on a stump to prove my point.
    I love (not hate – ergo good karma; peace not war) to bring this up from decade to decade; “Why not a flat tax?” I report X dollars of income and I pay Y% in taxes. That’s it! If one earns $1 million dollars a year, $100,000 per years, $10,000 per year – one simply pays Y percentage (Y%).
    As a flat tax, one does not care if it is 5%, 8%, 9%, 10%, 11%. In other countries in the world that percentage could 20%, 30%, or 40%. No one gets a break - No breaks, no discounts, no credits, no loopholes, no write-offs, no congressional waivers, no VISA waivers. Everyone who earns a wage hourly, salary, commission, including artists, musicians, non-profits, even our elected officials, employee unions, private enterprise, corporations, overseas, foreign assets overseas, etc.. Everyone pays. No exemptions anymore.
    Sorry, but in Human Resource legal ease, if something is consider to be applied to one, apply it to everyone. No exception. No discrimination. No Lawyers. No Lawsuits. No Confusion. Smile. Be Grateful.
    Stepping to the side of the IRS and supporting their needs to collect taxes, let’s define the importance of the IRS and how one can help them help us, and in term help oneself.
    The rules of the IRS are simple:
    1. Be on time – even an extension is legal.
    2. Be consistent – if you studied the tax code, and repeated yourself hundreds of times and followed the code as would an 8th grader would understand the IRS code, and you did so diligently, one should not be penalized for misinterpretation of the tax code.
    3. No attempt to defraud. Umm. If you need this one explained to you, then you might need additional counseling about the golden rule.
    Within these three rules, one can be straight and true, reasonable and prudent, deliver due diligence, and be in good faith, and be just fine.
    After all of that, the IRS and taxation of what is fair can be considered in both long term and short term a

  77. What the? by DanielBMS · · Score: 1

    Don't blackmail Romney! Release his tax returns right now and let the voting public consider his competition.

  78. work smarter... Re:Romney waived a red flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Working hard? what does that have to do with value. You have to work smarter,not harder... jack.