8/16/2012 3:38:12 PM

Quote :

"I remember having the supply-side economics lectures in Nelson hall at NCSU by an econ professor who was clearly, and admittedly conservative. Even he wasn't trying to even hint to us that supply-side economics was good for anything more than increasing the budget deficit. Isn't this pretty much accepted as fact by economics everywhere? I didn't know this was really still an argument."

That's what I thought as well...

8/16/2012 3:41:49 PM

8/16/2012 3:55:17 PM

YOU DIDN'T EARN THAT MONEY. THE GOVERNMENT EARNED THAT MONEY.

8/16/2012 3:57:07 PM

Quote :

" hold on there, champ. Let's not be intellectually dishonest and compare Mittens' effective tax rate with normal Americans' marginal tax rate. I'm a pretty 'normal American' with no crazy tax loopholes. My wife and I have (well, had for 2011) a mortgage, and one child. I take a 401k pre-tax deduction, and my healthcare premiums are also pre-tax. My effective rate for 2011 was 12.86% I think Romney is a typical shitty GOP candidate who will fuck over the middle class. But far too much is being made out of what is equally petty to the birther bullshit. "

There's a big difference between the birther bullshit and releasing tax returns. The birther stuff was false and Romney's refusal to release his tax returns is true. President Obama has not only released his birth certificate, he released 8 years of tax returns in 2008 and an additional 4 since he's been elected.





[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ...]

8/16/2012 3:57:52 PM

Quote :

""I remember having the supply-side economics lectures in Nelson hall at NCSU by an econ professor who was clearly, and admittedly conservative. Even he wasn't trying to even hint to us that supply-side economics was good for anything more than increasing the budget deficit. Isn't this pretty much accepted as fact by economics everywhere? I didn't know this was really still an argument.""

NO. Pretty much the exact opposite is the case. Too many liberal idiots out there, unfortunately.

Inform yourselves, knowledge is a wonderful thing...

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

8/16/2012 4:11:36 PM

Quote :

"ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the Community College of the Air Force. He also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of Civil War Studies from Carroll College. He is a graduate in Arabic and Hebrew of the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and of the U.S. Air Force Technical Training School in San Angelo, Texas. In addition, he has completed Advanced Hebrew programs at Haifa University in Israel and at the Spiro Institute in London, England. He is the author of five books on Mormonism and one book on the JFK assassination. His books on Mormonism include How Firm A Foundation, A Ready Reply, and One Lord, One Faith."

8/16/2012 4:18:25 PM

Quote :

"NO. Pretty much the exact opposite is the case. Too many liberal idiots out there, unfortunately. Inform yourselves, knowledge is a wonderful thing..."

hahahaha

This dude believes in trickle-down economics

LOL

8/16/2012 4:25:24 PM

^^ad hominem much?

8/16/2012 4:31:04 PM

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

Quote :

"So, in conclusion the verdict from history and empirical evidence is quite clear. Supply side economics is "voodoo economics". Reductions in tax rates (starting from initial moderate tax rate levels) do not siginificantly increase labor supply and savings, do not increase economic growth, do not raise total tax revenue and do not reduce budget deficits. Their likely effect on the level and growth rate on output is close to zero while they lead to significantly larger budget deficits. "

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM. Reason : link]

8/16/2012 4:42:35 PM

Quote :

"hahahaha This dude believes in trickle-down economics LOL "

This dude believes trickle-down is synonymous with supply side economics

LOL

8/16/2012 4:46:49 PM

Well there we have it!

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about!

8/16/2012 5:03:12 PM

Quote :

"Well there we have it! You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about! "

Quote :

"hahahaha This dude believes in trickle-down economics LOL "

straight from the horse's mouth, from a few pages back...

Quote :

"You have a very simple mind, don't you? No substantive comments, just "durrr, you're stupid, durrrrr" "

Quote :

"Well, I'm not sure if that's what you're saying because you're too much of a pussy to make any sort of substantive comment on the issue, all you can do is call people stupid. "

8/16/2012 5:25:37 PM

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM. Reason : ]

8/16/2012 5:28:59 PM

please try again.

i haven't even mentioned trickle-down economics itt.

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 5:36 PM. Reason : keep piling on the fail]

8/16/2012 5:30:29 PM

8/16/2012 5:31:22 PM

8/16/2012 5:45:57 PM

Quote :

"This dude believes trickle-down is synonymous with supply side economics"

Considering the guy who LITERALLY invented trickle down economics actually said, and was quoted as saying that trickle down IS supply-side economics, I would say yes, that his belief is true:

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
—David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/5760/


And here, I just did all the damn work for you to absolutely prove that supply-side economics doesn't fucking work.

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?page=view&resid=6D5207F27A6F6684!66399&authkey=!AK6oWSzrhf_BVBk

There's a public spreadsheet. All the numbers come from the whitehouse.gov and thecensus bureau.

Here's what you should pay attention to. The big graphs that show "trickle down" and "supply-side" don't grow revenue any more than any other approach, and they require massive amounts MORE spending/subsidy that drives up the deficit. They also show that the net result of this is that rich people get dramatically more wealthy, while the rest of us coast along at the inflation rate and the fed just builds debt.

The red blocks indicate "supply-side" policy. I left 1yr gaps between administration changes, because you can argue whether those are the responsibility of the outgoing administration or not. I tend to believe the 1st year economic results of every president are a result of the previous administration (there's nothing a president can do about effective tax policy their first year in office).



And here's a look at distribution of wealth:



This chart is why I'm a republican that hates my party. As you can see, the rich continue to get richer, while the rest of us get fuucked. The sad part is, the best period of this was during Clinton's administration. Yeah he lowered the deficit (only modern president to do so) but he didn't do a damn thing about equalizing economic opportunity.

Conservatives have such an incredible opportunity to actually be conservative, push fair-play and equalization of opportunity (not equalization of entitlement and benefits), and move away from the christian oligarchy bullshit that the party is knee deep in today.

8/16/2012 8:48:45 PM

OSNP

8/16/2012 8:57:21 PM

^^ I believe many of those graphs only refer to federal govt items. The problem is that the economic theories people are entertaining in this thread are based on different assumptions. State and federal also matter to those. These graphs could not even theoretically prove or disprove any of the theories under discussion. Let me clarify:

GDP: interstate, state, and everything else matters
federal spending and debt: only federal matters

I think Neon is the only trying real hard in this thread, and that he will also agree me. I'm just saying, the data people use to back up their pet theories is beyond just bad, it's outright invalid.

and...

Quote :

" I have plenty of issues with both parties, believe me. I would rather not vote for either of these candidates. But Obama is so toxic in my opinion that I will vehemently support Romney in this election."

How is Obama toxic?

8/16/2012 9:41:24 PM

^What? Did you even bother to read the post? Or look at the graphs?

Dude I just made those graphs. The question at hand is "trickle-down" economics. The data I'm using is federal deficit + federal taxation + census income.

Trickle down is a FEDERAL ECONOMIC THEORY. What the fuck are you talking about? There haven't been "multiple theories" in this thread. This is about Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's belief in supply-side economics. GDP doesn't fucking matter at all. It doesn't matter how much growth you spur if the net result is MORE DEBT at the federal level. It means at some point you either have to stop growing to pay off debt, or you go bankrupt. Which means the theory is fundamentally flawed. And every administration implementing this policy has resulted in cyclical worsening recessions.

This data is not bad, and it's not invalid. These are the ACTUAL FUCKING NUMBERS from the White House and US Census. They are as reliable and spot on correct as you are going to get.

[Edited on August 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2012 10:51:10 PM

Romney is gonna get Bob Dole'd by Obama.

8/16/2012 11:26:19 PM

damn romney, pull your pants up dude

8/17/2012 12:32:24 AM

If I were a republican, I'd hate Romney for being such a shitty candidate.

"Generic republican" would beat President Obama, and Romney's going to lose.

8/17/2012 1:26:41 AM

obvious photoshop is obvious

8/17/2012 3:33:43 AM

"We don't like people going behind our backs, using our music without asking, and we don't like the Romney campaign," Silversun Pickups lead singer Brian Aubert said in the statement. "We're nice, approachable people. We won't bite. Unless you're Mitt Romney! We were very close to just letting this go because the irony was too good. While he is inadvertently playing a song that describes his whole campaign, we doubt that 'Panic Switch' really sends the message he intends."

--Silversun Pickups

http://news.yahoo.com/silversun-pickups-object-romneys-song-233444375.html



Remind me to attend one of their concerts.

8/17/2012 4:08:16 AM

Quote :

"Trickle down is a FEDERAL ECONOMIC THEORY."

...

Are there papers written on "Trickle down"? Is a "federal economic theory" a thing in the first place? Are you proposing that economists created theories in order to guide the American federal government?

So do you think it's irrelevant that we didn't have a stimulus starting in 2008? All federal increases in spending was offset by reductions at state and local level. Indeed, a good amount of the stimulus was transfers to local levels so they didn't have to hand out pink slips. And you're defending a view that only considers the impact of federal spending on the economy? Come on. You're better than that.

8/17/2012 8:06:32 AM

^ you've been around t-dub long enough to know how this works. noen is always right, and everyone else is always wrong.

8/17/2012 8:13:41 AM

I should modify:

Quote :

"Are you proposing that economists created theories in order to guide the American federal government?"

... in the absence of other governmental institutions. If you demand one thing from one part of a system, some may easily give you that thing and destroy the world with a small number of tweaks elsewhere.

8/17/2012 9:36:35 AM

Noen

Quote :

"Considering the guy who LITERALLY invented trickle down economics actually said, and was quoted as saying that trickle down IS supply-side economics, I would say yes, that his belief is true: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." —David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director "

No one invented trickle down economics. It's not a recognizable school of thought like Keynesian or supply-side economics. "Trickle down" is nothing more than an pejorative term. It's basically critics shouting "you just want to justify tax breaks for the rich because you think the money will eventually trickle down to the poor, which it won't!" It's a straw man argument. The goal of supply-siders is not to help the rich. It's about helping producers produce more efficiently, increasing incentive to invest in businesses, and maximizing real economic growth. "Trickle down" is just a way to turn the discussion into a class warfare issue.

Your graphs are a sort of a CF. I mean, do you really think that proves supply-side doesn't work?

Have you read this in its entirety yet? Is there anything in here that you disagree with? If so, what?

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm


[Edited on August 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM. Reason : /]

8/17/2012 11:38:59 AM

Yeah dude, read Michael T Griffith, whoever the fuck that is, because apparently he is some sort of tax authority to some people somewhere.

At least this guy is a professor of economics at NYU:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

8/17/2012 11:51:30 AM

Michael T Griffith, the Grèg Hyèr of economists.

8/17/2012 12:30:16 PM

^^ Could you sum up his claims succinctly?

8/17/2012 1:18:20 PM

I forgot about Greg.

8/17/2012 1:40:36 PM

It isn't rocket science, he's just saying what macroeconomics professors everywhere teach. Supply-side economics, which has been sold to American politically as "trickle down" economics, does not work. Giving rich people, who have a high marginal propensity to save, a tax cut, does not result in job growth. It makes rich people richer, and increases budget deficits.

8/17/2012 1:43:56 PM

I know that when I receive calls from the RNC with regard to helping the 2012 campaign, they ask that donations be made in smaller amounts, so that they more adequately increase their revenues.

8/17/2012 3:33:41 PM

Mrfrog: none of your points are relevant at all. The 2008 stimulus has nothing to do with the Reagan HWBush and GWBush administrations. They all had the same supply-side bullshit policy.

If anything the stimulus and bailout is even more proof of the failure and consequences of supply-side policy. If you continue to blindly fund production and investment while removing oversight and accountability, eventually someone has to pay the piper.

Local and state supply-side theory has been all but abandoned now. The prevalence in the 90's and early 2000's of giving monstrous tax breaks, free land and incentives to entice business growth on the state level was and still is a break even proposition at best and in the majority of cases ended up costing the states a tremendous amount of tax revenue and didn't create permanent jobs or long term growth

Prep-e: actually yes, I read the entire article. Your guy is absolutely correct about the historic facts. During the bush administration, with lowered taxes, revenue did increase substantially. (Ironically, during the Clinton years the economy grew nearly as quickly, had even higher revenue growth and reduced the deficit significantly)

What he ignores is that supply-side economics has two facets. The first is lowering taxes to spur growth. The second is to spend MORE money on all forms of production and to deregulate and open markets, again to encourage growth to offset the costs.

The housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown is a direct result of continued supply-side policy. Now, I'm not saying that the democrats did any better, they also screwed the mortgage industry up, but they were doing it for social welfare rather than production welfare.

So while it is true that those reduced taxes were offset by more revenue, he ignores that the reason for that new revenue was due much more to the increased subsidy and decreased regulation of industry.

And none of his points matter AT ALL because he also ignores the most important part:

All that revenue increase STILL resulted in a ballooning national debt. Bush never balanced the budget or cut debts, he never even tried. Clinton was the only president in the modern era to actually implement a policy that reduced the debt over more than a 2 year span. And his economic policy sucked ass too (it favored the ultra wealthy even more than supply side). But at least it was balanced.

I think that's an important piece of context. I don't think Obama's economic policy is any better, its just a different kind of worse. The Republican party can easily back a fiscally responsible economic policy. If you remove the bullshit production incentives and reintroduce regulation and oversight, stop nation building, and continue to push towards reforming social security, we would be in pretty damn good shape.

You guys are arguing about bullet points of policy and ignoring the basics of macro economic policy. A working policy will:

1) Increase revenues at least in proportion with population growth and inflation
2) Increase GDP and real median income at least in proportion with revenues
3) Spend at most the revenue received.

Now the better a policy is, the less of 1 you need and you can maximize for 2 and/or 3 depending on needs.

Supply-side does 1 and 2 well, but miserably fails at 3.

8/17/2012 3:39:18 PM

Quote :

" If you continue to blindly fund production and investment while removing oversight and accountability, eventually someone has to pay the piper."

I'll confess to having trouble with these terms myself, but now, one word that I'm pretty darn sure does not apply to the United States of the last 30 years is export-driven economic growth. We've been deindustrialization if anything.

I'm even more confused by these terms of "production" and "investment" here. Capital gains tax is, by its very nature, designed to encourage investment. But when did we ever encourage investment? Is lowering capital gains actually encouraging investment, or just convincing stockholders to sell before they go up again? The 99% rhetoric is based on the idea of the top 1%'s income rose so drastically... mostly from payments, not investment return.

I can find a thing or two you're arguing against, not sure what you're arguing for.

Quote :

" Bush never balanced the budget or cut debts, he never even tried."

Bush didn't even get invited to the GOP convention. No Republican is going to commit political suicide by comparing themselves to Bush.

Quote :

"The 2008 stimulus has nothing to do with the Reagan HWBush and GWBush administrations."

So you think this is what the current line of Republican leadership is arguing as a model?

Who's arguing what in the first place?

8/17/2012 4:06:35 PM

Quote :

"Capital gains tax is, by its very nature, designed to encourage investment."

I'm pretty sure Capital gains tax is, by its very nature, designed to raise gov't revenue off gains made by investments. I don't think it was designed to encourage investment. That's silly.

Unless you're talking about some sort of system where short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains in order to encourage the type of investment that most businesses really need. But I doubt you were talking about that.

Maybe I'm missing something.

8/17/2012 5:42:02 PM

8/17/2012 5:46:08 PM

Noen, good post

a few things to discuss though

Quote :

"The housing crisis and resulting financial meltdown is a direct result of continued supply-side policy. Now, I'm not saying that the democrats did any better, they also screwed the mortgage industry up, but they were doing it for social welfare rather than production welfare. "

I know why you're saying this, but supply-side policy wasn't the core of the problem. This had nothing to do with supply-side policy. The core of the problem was FannieMae and FreddieMac, and thus ultimately the government. The government was basically encouraging banks to "cheat" by issuing loans that no prudent person would ever make on their own, and then guaranteeing that Fannie and Freddie would buy them up right afterwards. It corrupted the whole system and eventually the bubble burst.

Quote :

"All that revenue increase STILL resulted in a ballooning national debt. Bush never balanced the budget or cut debts, he never even tried. Clinton was the only president in the modern era to actually implement a policy that reduced the debt over more than a 2 year span. And his economic policy sucked ass too (it favored the ultra wealthy even more than supply side). But at least it was balanced."

I don't get how you can blame the ballooning debt on supply side policy. There was more revenue there, but the problem was that Bush overspent (not nearly as bad as Obama though). Still to this day, we do not have a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. Too much government, too many entitlements.

Quote :

"1) Increase revenues at least in proportion with population growth and inflation 2) Increase GDP and real median income at least in proportion with revenues 3) Spend at most the revenue received. Now the better a policy is, the less of 1 you need and you can maximize for 2 and/or 3 depending on needs. Supply-side does 1 and 2 well, but miserably fails at 3."

Again, I think you're off here. I don't see why you think supply-siders are big spenders. That's the opposite of what we stand for. We want to minimize government spending, and let the private investors do all the spending. Keynesian theory is the one that fails miserably at #3. Look at Obama's deficits if you want to see what Keynesian economics do.

8/17/2012 7:34:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure Capital gains tax is, by its very nature, designed to raise gov't revenue off gains made by investments. I don't think it was designed to encourage investment. That's silly. Unless you're talking about some sort of system where short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains in order to encourage the type of investment that most businesses really need. But I doubt you were talking about that. Maybe I'm missing something."

Here's what you're missing:

We had a "default" option, which was to tax investment gains are ordinary income. Capital gains was implemented in lieu of this. What is my evidence for claiming this? You only get capital gains if you hold a stock for long enough time, evidencing that it is not only to encourage investment, but long term investment specifically. If your sell doesn't qualify for capital gains, then you pay ordinary income tax on the gain.

We could completely ditch capital gains and tax all investment gains as ordinary income. Is this fair? We no. Say your investment rose 4% annually but inflation was 2% during that time. You will be taxed on 0.04 times your principle even though you only gained value of 0.02 times your principle. So it is unfair to omit inflation from the discussion about taxation of investment gains. But, politicians always always always omit inflation from the discussion about taxation of investment gains. Plus, day traders already pay regular income tax on their gains. What do investment bank shareholders pay on the gains of their bank? Well, it's a corporation, not an individual, so the corp pays neither regular income tax or capital gains tax, they pay corporate income tax, which should be around 30% or so, but they use accounting tricks and the globalized economy to skirt that in most cases. Then another cut is taken when the stock holder sells the corp's stock as regular capital gains (probably). So bottom line is that banks can day-trade at an effective tax rate of probably <40%, but you'll have to treat it like regular income. Even though it's not.

Hope that clears it up.

[Edited on August 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

8/18/2012 11:15:19 AM

Quote :

"Again, I think you're off here. I don't see why you think supply-siders are big spenders. That's the opposite of what we stand for. We want to minimize government spending, and let the private investors do all the spending. Keynesian theory is the one that fails miserably at #3. Look at Obama's deficits if you want to see what Keynesian economics do."

What was the alternative to Obama's stimulus (Keynesian) spending and deficits? I'm seriously asking, because you seem to have classified yourself in the supply-side economics camp, and used the word "we", indicating there are other people with you.

Who?

McCain sure as hell wasn't against the stimulus spending. Would he have done something else (which he never talked about, much less gave specifics) that would have later closed the deficit? I don't think so, as he was offering to flat-out bail out homeowners as his campaign got desperate. George W. Bush sure as hell didn't have the alternative to Obama's deficit spending, he started the TARP and stimulus program... not to mention the 8 fucking years prior. He sent checks to every taxpayer in the nation the second he got in office. Is that supply-side economics? Because it was complete bull shit, and the perfect picture of government irresponsibility.

Where is the camp of Republicans who are not "big spenders" and effectively use supply-side economics to get the economy going? Does this exist? Is it a thing?

So I think I speak for everyone when I say "what the fuck are you talking about?"

8/18/2012 11:33:08 AM

3 hours ago
Obama camp: Let's make a deal on tax returns. Romney camp: No.
Posted by
CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) – President Barack Obama's campaign sought to turn up the pressure Friday on Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, offering to back off on their calls for the release of additional years of returns if he agrees to disclose five years of tax information.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/17/obama-camp-lets-make-a-deal-on-tax-returns/?hpt=hp_bn3

8/18/2012 4:10:19 PM

8/18/2012 6:00:42 PM

^^ So do you think he should release 5 years of tax returns? Please don't reply with a copy+paste...

8/18/2012 6:12:49 PM

I don't really care if he does or doesn't. The tax return issue is just a game to get our minds off the real issues.



1) Even if he does release them, there is no way of verifying if the returns haven't been manipulated to show no wrong-doing. Who would release tax returns that would incriminate themselves?

2) If the tax returns were fraudulent in any way, and the government was interested in prosecuting him, dont you think they would have done that by now?

Since the IRS has control of his tax returns, and Romney isn't in trouble with the law, it's safe to say that his tax returns are either 1) not fraudulent or 2) the IRS/government has no interest or care about his tax returns. It's stupid to think the government is arguing about an issue that the government has access to.

3) Who would even consider running for president in the first place without knowing full well that in order to earn people's trust, he'd have to release his tax returns?

The whole thing issue has "occupy media time" written all over it.



[Edited on August 18, 2012 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2012 6:26:33 PM

Quote :

"There's a big difference between the birther bullshit and releasing tax returns. The birther stuff was false and Romney's refusal to release his tax returns is true. President Obama has not only released his birth certificate, he released 8 years of tax returns in 2008 and an additional 4 since he's been elected."

agreed. there's a big difference and those birthers are idiots.

but, there's not a big difference in why he refuses to release his college and law school transcripts.

if i was Romney, that's where i'd throw down the gauntlet on this. i'd agree to release my tax returns in exchange for his transcripts. after all, neither should be that big of a deal.... right?

as for whether Romney evaded the tax code.... if he did, it honestly wouldn't bother me one bit. it would mean he's smarter than i'm giving him credit for, because it would demonstrate he's at least cognizant of the fact that our tax code is a convoluted atrocity.

[Edited on August 18, 2012 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2012 6:28:51 PM

^^The IRS is certainly legally obligated to keep his filings private. It couldn't go from IRS to public, although I wouldn't be shocked if the president was able to pull strings and get private access himself.

Otherwise, I'm not entirely convinced that the fact that the IRS hasn't prosecuted him evidences that there are no felonies. I think the IRS is pragmatic in the way they conduct business, and whenever you file a tax return, they really do take you at your word in many ways. Even with an audit, it's not like they're going to do a investigation into the other parts of your life - they just ask you to prove things. The media, on the other hand, will actually hunt down people who have worked with Romney and the products of his companies and organizations he served to check for consistency. The IRS just doesn't go to that length, and if they did for high-profile individuals for political means they would get a huge backlash. They don't really have power themselves, they're just an enforcement arm and their ordinary methods are crude.

Quote :

"but, there's not a big difference in why he refuses to release his college and law school transcripts."

Did other presidents release this? I'm not saying it settles it, it's just relevant.

8/19/2012 11:54:20 AM

Quote :

" but, there's not a big difference in why he refuses to release his college and law school transcripts. if i was Romney, that's where i'd throw down the gauntlet on this. i'd agree to release my tax returns in exchange for his transcripts. after all, neither should be that big of a deal.... right?"

Why should Obama release his college transcripts? Has Romney released his?

Obama has already released 12 years of taxes and is asking Romney to be less than half the man he is by releasing 5.

8/19/2012 12:53:08 PM