Image and video hosting by TinyPic














Friday, August 17, 2012

Taxes, again

Barack Obama's campaign has send a letter to the Romney campaign, offering a deal: Release five years of tax returns and we won't bring up the topic ever again, no matter what kind of muck shows up in those document.

Of course, whoever came up with this "reasonable" offer is a man of great wit. Five years? Hm. That brings us back to the 2008-2009 period, which would reveal whether Romney really did make use of that amnesty. Now that Romney has gone on record as saying that he paid at least 13 percent in taxes, there will be hell to pay if the documents show otherwise.

I think he went for the amnesty. The 13 percent he (maybe) paid in previous years was only for the income that showed, not the income he hid.

I think Team Obama knows what may lurk in those tax returns. Why else would they specify five years -- not six, not four?

Romney's response:
"Given the challenges that America faces – 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, 1 out of 6 Americans in poverty – the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face," Romney said in South Carolina.
Iran is not about to go nuclear. (Not that it would be any of our business if Iran did build a bomb.)

Nobody in his right mind believes that Romney is going to institute a program that will put people to work or lift them out of poverty -- after all, the previous Republican created this Depression.

True, Obama has not been much of a Democrat. His stim package was largely a matter of tax cuts, which don't work. On the other hand, if the talk is true -- if Krugman, or someone like unto Krugman, stands a chance of getting Geithner's gig in the second term -- then I'll forgive much.

Of this much I'm certain: Obama doesn't want a war with Iran. It is clear that Romney longs to attack.

If he does, that will be that as far as the American economy is concerned. The planned Iran debacle will be much more expensive than was the $3 trillion Iraq debacle.
Comments:
Avoiding war in the Middle East, which most likely will lead to a global economic meltdown if not a WW III nuclear conflagration (but that, as well), is the key issue for these times.

Shimon Peres has publicly stated his opposition to the insane Netanyahu push for war, and every military and intel leader in Israel, current and former, agree with Peres.

Who agrees with Bibi? Apparently, Mitt Romney. Or at least he insists that Bibi deserves and will get a free hand to do whatever it is he wants, even if that means the end of human civilization as we've known it, for generations to come.

This means there is only one prudential and moral choice in the November elections.

A pity that given media and political realities, this cannot be made clear in public discussion. Why is that, again?

XI
 
The only people who benefit from the Iran War talk are oil speculators - who do great when the futures prices goes up for several months (along with the oil companies), and would make true fortunes from stockpiled oil if an actual hot war broke out.

I'd say it's a very safe bet that RMoney, his pals in the commodity-trading community, Halliburton, et al are thrilled by the potential of an Iran war. The greater the uncertainty in the market, the better the trading algorithms work, and the more money is made.

The real economy? Who cares about that? The more depressed it gets, the cheaper real things (property, corporations, media empires, politicians) can be bought.

Net result, the aristocracy wins if theres's an oil shock; assets are transferred out of the hands of the wider G8 population into the hands of commodity speculators.

The shock-based transfer of wealth is one of reasons for the aristocracy to resist regional sustainable energy sources, since they are not as subject to war talk, oil shocks and market manipulation. What is an advantage for the general population is a disadvantage for the aristocracy.

Moving on to RMoney, I've spoken firsthand to Swiss bankers in Zurich; they demand proof that your money is legally acquired - they do NOT want drug money in Switzerland. On the other hand, though, the banker I spoke to told me that 99% of their American clients did not want any bank info sent to the Feds.

Swiss law carries very heavy penalties for client disclosure; the bank officer who makes the disclosure is sent to Swiss jail for several years. It's pretty much the opposite of US law, where there is very little bank privacy.

The Caribbean banks are quite another matter. Unlike the Swiss, there are no questions asked where the money came from, which attracts dirty money from drug cartels and the CIA. In fact, I can see no legitimate reason to bank in the Caribbean, unless you have something to hide from the DEA and Interpol.
 
Krugman as Treasury Secretary? If he had power, this country would indeed have a chance to recover. I wonder how likely Obama would be to pick Krugman.

--NW Luna
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?


























Image and video hosting by TinyPic


FeedWind



FeedWind




FeedWind