I’m guessing they’re wagering that someone might be willing to lose their job for a million bucks, not go to jail.

Given the incredible scope of the presidency it’s pretty much impossible to avoid conflicts of interest.

Of course you can’t eliminate all conflicts of interest, but the public should at least get a chance to find out what those conflicts are. I just want to see everyone’s cards on the table.

Blame congress and the absolutely fucked up tax code we have.

And do you think that a person who reaps huge benefits from that fucked up tax code is going to have much motivation to change it?

Are you saying we shouldn’t have elected GWB because he would then be in charge of energy policy and give huge handouts to oil companies?

That and many other reasons.  Finding the candidate with the fewest conflicts of interest seems like a good strategy to me.  You’ve failed to convince me otherwise.

Watch closely, now.  The counter to that was to point out that Americans are stupid and lazy.  ‘Cause that’s totally relevant.

Dude, why should I care how the average voter votes?  Should the “fact” that Americans are lazy and stupid mean that I should use the same criteria they do to pick candidates? 

Second of all, your “blame Congress” nonsense is just partisan rhetoric.  The current Congress didn’t put the tax code into effect de novo so it makes no sense to blame Congress at all.  Maybe “blame all Congresses since the advent of the income tax,” but then, Congress wasn’t solely responsible for any of that.  Presumably the people who voted for the congressmen deserve some amount of the blame, as do any special interests that might have lobbied Congress for more tax loopholes.  Finally, presidents do set agendas for legislation so the blame falls to the executive branch to a certain extent as well.

Finally, our system of government is set up in such a way as to make repeal or retraction of laws already on the books extremely difficult.  So you can blame the framers of the constitution as well.

Or you can stop trying to find people or groups to blame since “blaming” people or groups is actually counterproductive to solving problems. You can acknowledge reality, including the reality that disclosure of tax info is a pretty reasonable request to make of a person who’s trying to become president of the USA.

I put my clothes on and got the fuck out of there as quietly and quickly as possible.

In other words, a money shot?

If you look long enough into the void…

O_o

You’re not going to find a viable candidate that doesn’t have conflicts of interest.  Even Ron Paul has conflicts, especially with regards to his economic policy and gold holdings. 

A leak of his accounting records might be more enlightening, but the IRS doesn’t have that. 

After looking at them, they immediately struck him from the list.

I bet it’s all of the above, plus a dozen more reasons.

Why then take the loss of political points…?

It’d be like 30 seconds to give his accountant/accounting firm permission to release them, then them not 30 minutes to prepare a publicly down-loadable .pdf…

If it was just the 13% whatever he’s claimed, why not just then open them up?

Unless:

1.  I’m right, he’s paid ZERO taxes using a scheme that while technically “Legal” —note I’m not accusing him of actually breaking the law—, if revealed publically his loophole will be closed, perhaps retroactively…

2.  Even worse, he’s paid LESS than ZERO taxes…?  All those jobs shipped overseas.  All those companies closed down, but not before their pension plans are looted and the companies are saddled with debt.  What should be “Fraud and theft” is business these days.

Really, you are defending Romney…  How can you do so?

Sorry if you think it’s “Unfair” but politics ain’t fair.  He’s essentially applying to the “Job” of “President of the USA”.  Would you hire him?

But if he wants to run an above-board campaign *and* he is running on the strength of his skill at running his businesses and finances so well that he can do the same for the country, then I think the tax returns questions are very relevant.

But it’s mainly because 60 yrs of precedent has been established, and he is chooosing not to do something that was expected of Obama.  

Obama showed his taxes, and what did he get?  Grief for not showing his birth certificate.  When no other presidential candidate, including Romney, released their birth certificate.  

If Obama showed his taxes to prove his financial reporting was above-board and not fraudulent, then the least Romney can do is the same thing.

If his taxes are correct, ie legally correct, then Romney has nothing to worry about, and the story will be done.

If his taxes are incorrect through errors or incompetence, or outright fraudulent, or whatever, would we rather know of this before the election, or after the election when he is President.

And my final question, and I really don’t know the answer to this, so this is a serious question:
If Romney did do actual fraudulent taxes, ie tax evasion, and it was discovered after he became President, would he be impeachable?  If he was somehow impeached or convicted, could he somehow issue his own self a pardon, maybe even at the investigation stage so that no further investigation could be conducted?  

of final note, of course it wasnt in the Constitution because in 1789 there was no income tax.  I would say that maybe now is the time to add an amendment that somehow documentation verification needs to be done by some office for Pres, VP, Congress, etc..but there is not enough time to do that for this election, but for future, all these arguements can be avoided if we just require the documents from everyone to be turned into somewhere verifiable.

1) He has paid 0% taxes one or more years. Campaign feels this would be a deal breaker for his election chances. They are likely right.

2) He took advantage of the ‘Swiss Bank Account’ Amnesty with the IRS in 2009. Campaign feels this would be a deal breaker for his election chances. They are likely right

3) He tithes substantially more to the Mormons than he pays in taxes. Probably not as deal breaking as the first two, but still poor optics.

4) This one is my favorite theory, just for the delicious optics of it. He has not been tithing as much as he is supposed to, and the revelation would be deeply embarrassing on more fronts than the campaign can count.

I am quite sure that Gov. Romney paid every dollar he was legally required to pay and not a dime more.

“I stuck to the exact letter of the law” is an attractive attribute in a lawyer or accountant. Less so in someone running to be President of the United States. Why shouldn’t he be held to a higher standard than the minimum?

Do you really think the average voter doesn’t vote this way?

The public is lazy and stupid, which is why we get what we get in these elections.