Comments on: Romney’s taxing vice-president http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: sylvan http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58654 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:33:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58654 Romney has more to lose than to gain by disclosing his tax returns or he would disclose them. McCain, the only American voter allowed a glimpse at most of his returns, only says he hasn’t done anything illegal or immoral….this from a member of the Keating Five, who admitted being bribed by financial entity. If he paid taxes all those years, why doesn’t McCain say Harry Reid’s source is wrong? Because it is not. Mitt is not only above paying his fair share of taxes, he is above admitting that he does. If he is not ashamed by his aggressive tax avoidance, then he would be willing to shine a light on them.
No more tax returns, no vote for Romney.

]]>
By: Glenn113 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58638 Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:24:48 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58638 Excellent article.

]]>
By: ocleite http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58616 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:30:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58616 about Ro-money tax evasions…not everything immoral is illegal! That an old one …by Cicero! Please do not blame me.

]]>
By: spameroo http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58611 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:18:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58611 @ stevedebi – it seems you recognize that this is an opinion piece, but I’m not sure if you understand what that means. This article is, by definition, not “reporting.” Further, the entire purpose of an opinion article is “to influence the reader.” “Attempting to hide” the necessarily “slanted” nature of such an article would actually be intellectually dishonest; would you prefer every article (whether opinion-based or fact-based) shoehorn in some opposite claim, as if “fact” simply meant “two equal but opposite biases added together”? If so, you might prefer to get your news from CNN. Would you prefer there to be no way to distinguish valid information from bias, with even the most falsifiable, partisan claims being presented “in a neutral fashion” to “hide it”? You might like to read Fox News or the Huffington Post, then.

Personally, though, I like there to be a clear delineation between reporting and opinion. Knowing what words mean, I am able to go into an article with the proper expectations of either objective reporting or potentially one-sided persuasion.

]]>
By: Gerechtigkeits http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58591 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:07:30 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58591 The I.R.S is to complicated. Almost everybody would avoid paying taxes if they could find a way to legally do it. Currently tax cheats have been appointed to top jobs in Washington. The hypocrisy on both sides is nauseating. Why all the loopholes in the tax code? Who made it so complicated? The government! Flat tax sounds so good. So simple. If you make allot you will pay allot and if you make a little you pay a little. Everyone is equal and pays the same percentage. Save billions running the I.R.S. A good motto for the government is keep it simple stupid.

]]>
By: stevedebi http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/08/09/romneys-taxing-vice-president/#comment-58540 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:46:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=13798#comment-58540 This is not the sort of reporting that I’m used to from Reuters. The article is slanted, and not even attempting to hide it. Basically a waste of time, since a slanted article cannot be depended upon for valid information. Even opinion articles should be written well and in a neutral fashion; this one attempts to influence the reader with style instead of content. Which means I ignore both.

]]>