Mittenspalooza World Tour 2012: The MegaMormonThread!

[Valmy]

I'm not in the mood to debate healthcare.  Besides, don't you have some size 0 diapers to change?

Why do you think I didn't post much this weekend?

I am at work right now eating lunch but I will be chaning diapers extensively tonight!

[alfred russel]

I know that there are different definitions for socialism, but such a system doesn't seem to be socialism to me.

Well Socialism I thought meant nationalizing the means of production but the word gets pretty loosely thrown around these days.  So if the state providing money for people's health care is not socialism what exactly is it that makes socialized medicine socialist?

I would think true socialism would be government providing doctors salaries. That would involve nationalizing the means of production.

Now we have primarily private providers of medical services, with funding coming from both private and public sources. It isn't a libertarian paradise by any means, but I wouldn't call it, or Obamacare, socialist.

[Jacob]

Socialism, at the very least, would involve health care being available to everyone according to their needs rather than their means. Even if such a system involved a number of components operating as private businesses (doctors, clinics, whatever) rather than acting as employees or agencies of the state, I'd consider it reasonably socialistic in nature.

Of course for it to be completely socialistic, the doctors would have to be employees of the state, and clinics and hospitals would be state funded and run.

[Neil]

I'm more curious by his statement that the system may work for others but will not work for Americans. Are Americans so different from Brits or Canadians?

Could the UK or Canadian systems handle the enormous quantities of gunshot wounds that American culture generates?

[Valmy]

Could the UK or Canadian systems handle the enormous quantities of gunshot wounds that American culture generates?

We make up for it with our lower rates of knife wounds.

[Jacob]

So Harry Reid says Romney didn't pay any taxes at all for 10 years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html

Your opinion about some possible scenarios, please.

1. It's true and it is eventually established as a fact beyond dispute. How does it affect Romney? Do independents and Republican voters think it's a bad thing that Romney avoided taxes altogether for a decade? Or will it turn into a positive? Conversely, will Democrats and other independents see it as bad enough that it'll increase the turnout?

2. Whether it's true or not, Romney keeps dodging it. How much legs does the story have?

3. It's not true, and eventually Romney comes clean with his tax records and whatever negative content it may have, it's less dramatic than the worst of the speculation. Will that effectively defang the criticism?

What's the likely outcome in each scenario?

[alfred russel]

There was an amnesty for people with offshore accounts a couple of years ago...if Romney took advantage of that it is a reason not to come clean.

The reality probably is that if there is anything ugly in the returns they will never be released. If Romney didn't pay taxes (legally) the past 10 years a good person to pillory would be Harry Reid (along with other congressmen), not Romney. Parts of the public wouldn't see it that way though.

[DGuller]

If it's 1, then Romney is a bigger idiot than Edwards for running.  If it's 2, then the speculation just keeps getting worse.  In two months, Romney would be hiding his tax returns because he wrote off the payments to mob hit men as business expenses.  If it's 3, then who knows? 

[Admiral Yi]

So Harry Reid says Romney didn't pay any taxes at all for 10 years: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html

Your opinion about some possible scenarios, please.

1. It's true and it is eventually established as a fact beyond dispute. How does it affect Romney? Do independents and Republican voters think it's a bad thing that Romney avoided taxes altogether for a decade? Or will it turn into a positive? Conversely, will Democrats and other independents see it as bad enough that it'll increase the turnout?

2. Whether it's true or not, Romney keeps dodging it. How much legs does the story have?

3. It's not true, and eventually Romney comes clean with his tax records and whatever negative content it may have, it's less dramatic than the worst of the speculation. Will that effectively defang the criticism?

What's the likely outcome in each scenario?

1. Very bad for Romney.

2. It's a perfect pig fucker accusation.  Now the story becomes Mitt telling everyone he doesn't fuck pigs.

3. Bad for Romney.  The left gets to pound him even harder on carried interest, dividend and capital gains tax rates, and other "loopholes that hard working middle class Americans like you and me can't use."

Link didn't work for me.  Natural question that comes to me is: how the hell does an investor in Bain know how much taxes Mitt paid?  How the hell does anyone besides Mitt and his accountant know?

[DGuller]

Yeah, Reid's story sounds dodgy to me.  I can't imagine how someone of Romney's wealth and visibility can pay no taxes at all for 10 years, and not be in prison right now.  Maybe it's just Reid accusing Romney of pig fucking, using conveniently unverifiable sources.

[alfred russel]

If it's 1, then Romney is a bigger idiot than Edwards for running.  If it's 2, then the speculation just keeps getting worse.  In two months, Romney would be hiding his tax returns because he wrote off the payments to mob hit men as business expenses.  If it's 3, then who knows?

The thing is, short of taking advantage of an amnesty or something similar, his tax records aren't going to show anything illegal. You prepare your tax return and provide it to the IRS. His accountants knew those returns would get a lot of scrutiny--aside from the fact he is in public life, he has enough net worth that the IRS would be all over his returns. If he paid no taxes he probably had no income--which is possible. But Harry Reid is almost certainly just throwing shit at the wall. How would a business partner of Romney's know the contents of his personal returns the past 10 years?

[Admiral Yi]

Unless Harry is taking a play out of his good friend Kirchner's playbook. 

[DGuller]

Unless Harry is taking a play out of his good friend Kirchner's playbook. 

Can you share a couple of excerpts? 

[Admiral Yi]

Can you share a couple of excerpts? 

Argentina has taken to unleashing the tax authority on critics of the present government, but I was insinuating that Harry took a peak at Mitt's IRS records.

Not seriously.

[grumbler]

We know that Romney's tax records won't make him look good, because he has been so coy about releasing them.

I am in the camp that says he paid embarrassingly little tax, not no taxes at all.  In other words, the pigfucker-scenario camp (and a big "thanks" to Yi for reviving that metaphor).