Burch: Mitt Romney’s $101M Cayman Island IRAs

Friday, April 27, 2012 at 12:11am
By Michael R. Burch

Tennesseans will soon have to make a very important choice: who will make the better president, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? After four years we have a pretty good idea of who Barack Obama is and what he stands for. But appearances and organizational skills aside, Mitt Romney is hard to figure.

Romney certainly looks presidential, but if we tear our eyes away from his impressively coiffed figure and actually listen to his words, he sounds like a robot programmed to mindlessly drone the standard Republican mantras: “Everything bad that ever happened to Americans is the fault of Barack Hussein Obama, and if you elect me I will wave my magic wand and fix everything my first day in office, by repealing this, that and the other piece of legislation.”

Like most robots, Romney seems to lack empathy for and a connection with human beings. He is certainly no Ronald Reagan. While he’s not as creepy as Richard Nixon, he seems perhaps even more weirdly remote and alien. Take, for example, his remark that “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine.” He seems to somehow equate the very poor and the very rich. Even Nixon wouldn’t have made that mistake.

Romney also opined that his speaking fees of $374,327 last year were “not very much.” Last June, he told a group of unemployed Floridians that he shared their plight, saying: “I’m also unemployed. I’m networking. I have my sight on a particular job.” If he was trying to be funny, the joke fell flat.

At a debate, he offered to bet Rick Perry $10,000 — an amount that, however facetious, reminded voters just how rich and carefree Romney is.

But nothing I’ve heard said by or about Mitt Romney holds a candle to his $101 million in Cayman Island IRAs. It seems possible that he may have sheltered all or most of his Bain Capital wealth from taxes by putting it into an offshore “IRA” and only allowing it to be valued correctly once the appreciation was protected from taxes. If there is some other reasonable explanation for how anyone’s IRA can be so huge, when contributions are limited to a few thousand dollars per year, I’d like to hear it.

I first became suspicious about Romney’s finances when he started squirming like a fish out of water when he was asked about releasing his tax returns during a debate. Then later something in a Huffington Post article caught my eye, because a single Bain fund was valued at $5 million to $25 million, and yet was called only “part” of his IRA. So I started trying to determine what Romney’s full IRA amounted to. Here’s an excerpt from a Reuters report I found, dated Jan. 23, 2012:

“In the wake of news reports last week that presidential contender Mitt Romney owns an individual retirement account worth as much as $101 million, questions are growing over how it could have gotten so big when contribution limits are capped at $5,000 or $6,000 a year. Tax lawyers and accountants suggest an answer: Romney may have made use of an Internal Revenue Service loophole that allows investors to undervalue interests in investment partnerships when first putting them into an IRA. These assets can produce returns far in excess of those that could be generated from other investments made at the capped level. An investor could even set an initial value for a partnership interest at zero dollars, because under tax regulations an interest in a partnership represents future income, not current value.”

Romney's IRA has been valued at between $20.7 million and $101.6 million, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.  It holds stakes in 13 investment entities run by Bain Capital, Romney’s private-equity firm.

“One possibility for its size is that he put his Bain partnership interests into the IRA and valued them at a very low number,” said David Weisbach, a law professor who specializes in taxes at the University of Chicago Law School.

The average IRA held by Americans holds $42,500, so Romney’s seems outrageously large. His IRA produced income of $1.5 million to $8.5 million between 2010 and 2011, according to his financial summary, so it seems quite possible that the IRA may be closer to the high-end estimate of $101.6 million.

Romney’s total wealth has been estimated at around $200 million. If he shielded half his money from all taxes, that would seem to drop his effective tax rate from around 14% to around 7%. And that would explain why he looked like a fish out of water when he was asked about disclosing his tax returns. In this case, I suspect that two plus two probably results in four ... as in four more years for President Barack Obama.

Michael R. Burch is a Nashville-based editor and publisher of Holocaust poetry and other “things literary” at www.thehypertexts.com.

149 Comments on this post:

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 9:50

And if they want to fear-monger about going to war; Reagan was out of the gate saying he'd take it to the Ruskies... anyone who really supported Reagan would necessarily be behind the Republicans of similar (if not MORE moderate) mindset or they would have to have had some left-wing epiphany that would discredit their view of Reagan too.

By: slacker on 4/27/12 at 9:53

I'll wager most of the Obama converted Reagan Republicans, voted for Carter & Mondale.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 9:56

As an editorial note, my yogi filter not only applies to yogi posts but to any post that includes a reference to yogi so if anyone is addressing me and expects a response please keep this in mind.

No offense Yogi... but life is too short. If I need a dose of something like that I'll just tune in to Noory when I'm late leaving the bar.

By: yogiman on 4/27/12 at 9:56


I'm sure glad I don't have your wisdom in the political issue. Hell, I'd be rooting for a UIO (usurper in office) because he's a Democrat.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/27/12 at 9:59

Moonglow1: Remember the reason for war? Saddam driving around in a mobile lab. I laughed so hard. So lame, the lie was sold. With the relentless complicity of the news media and war "branding" most suckers bought it. And years later, here we are.

I try and look "beyond the news"- what is being said and why. And follow the money-who profits.

Is Obama perfect. No way. But, the way it is going down is this:

Our future-the 99 percent-to exist as people and not merely as corporate commodities
Or a world dictated by multinational corporations of which profit is all that matters.

I vote for our future...

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 10:02

Oh geezzz... that explains it. Moonglow is an occupier.

By: slacker on 4/27/12 at 10:08


By: Loner on 4/27/12 at 10:12

Amen, brother Brrrrk....but in all fairness, what we got beats feudalism...I mean I dig a Renaissance Fair as much as the next guy, but I like flush toilets, bathing, anesthesia, internal combustion engines and some of the other nice spin-offs of the capitalist system.. I would bet that you do too.

The thing is, capitalism needs regulation. Otherwise, you get a Charles Dickens scenario....inhumane exploitation of the working class....or outright human slavery.

The confederates were capitalists who did not want federal government interference with their labor force and its "management". That's still the case in the Old South.

Organized labor once acted as a counterweight to run away mad dog capitalism...nowadays, elected governments largely perform that needed function...it's all in the balance.

Too much regulation will make that engine of prosperity stall....but running out of fuel, will shut it down too....comprehensive sustainability should be the goal...mutually beneficial compromise is the key to success in this area, IMO.

Finally, when much of the economy is defense industry based, all the market mechanisms, the natural checks & balances are removed from the capitalist paradigm. The equations get "fudged". Crony capitalism, corporate welfare and perpetual warfare become the norm.....how long can our republic last, when this is the case?

By: yogiman on 4/27/12 at 10:13

Your comment well taken, BenDover, but I'm going to keep my usurper posts alive until after the election and I'll repeat: If an illegal person is so readily accepted as president of this nation, you can kiss the American as we have all known it goodbye. Just put your copy of the Constitution (if you have one) in the outhouse because it'll only be good for crap in the future.

And I'll still offer my bet that Barry Soetoro is not an American citizen. Wanna bet?

By: Loner on 4/27/12 at 10:20

Yogiman...for God's sake, take that tin-foil helmet off your head....go outside....get some air....find solitude in a quiet place and purge.....you'll feel a whole lot better.

By: Moonglow1 on 4/27/12 at 10:22

Moonglow1: Ben, no I am not an "occupier," but a realist. I see the world as it is. I agree with Loner's 11:12 post. Capitalism needs regulation. You can see the results now of unregulated capitalism IMO.

By: yogiman on 4/27/12 at 10:31

Sorry, Loner, I hate to disappoint you but I will only feel relieved when we get a legal president in office.

Do you have a suggestion for a legal candidate??

By: Loner on 4/27/12 at 10:49

As my dear departed momma might say at this point: "O Jezu kochany!"

The troll is simply too annoying to monitor this comment board any longer today...I've had enough....I gotta go.....see ya later!

By: yogiman on 4/27/12 at 11:07

Bye, Loner. Sorry, but I simply cannot compare my political heritage to yours. I will follow my path to the end of the road. And I give you my word, I will not laugh at you when your ignorance of that office is exposed.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 12:02

Capitalism has regulation. Some of it merited some of it political... and some of it just a Chicago-way shake-down by the monstrous bureaucracy we now suffer in our federal government

By: dargent7 on 4/27/12 at 12:31

"Romney gave it away..." You cannot give AWAY your family name.
If daddy was president of American Motors, how can you distance yourself?
If daddy was Gov. of Mich., how can you distance yourself?
If daddy was Secretary of HUD (House and Urban Developement), how can you distance yourself?
If you have 5 sons, and not ONE enlists and serves for his country, how can you distance yourself?
If you're a Mormon, who's belief system is weirder than Hare Krishnas, how can you distance yourself?
I don't mind having an intelligent conversation, with Nazis for example, but you hillbillies take the cake.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 12:43

Real Clear Politics is showing Obama with likely/lean Electoral count at 227 down from 272 a few weeks ago when I checked. Some of the swing states must have clicked back over into the tossup column since Romney cinched the nomination.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 12:54

Whew... Obama takes a hit on the approval, big-time, too when you limit the polls to Registered and Likely voters. His approval average really being padded up by the polls that don't distinguish.

By: brrrrk on 4/27/12 at 12:54

MusicCity615 said

"MR worked in private equity for goodness sakes!! Their objective is to look at companeis with great potential but very poor management and turn them around, and he was extremely successful in it!!!"

They make them "successful" on paper only.... here's how the scam works.

1. First of all, partners in private equity firms rarely invest their own money. They get other outside people to invest. They have no skin in the game. In fact Romney, started Baine using other peoples money.... he invested none of his own.

2. They then use that money to buy companies that they think they can get profits from. Remember, just because you can get profits from a company, that doesn't mean that the company is actually "profitable", at least in the real sense. And after all, you only need one or two years of good profits to recoup your investment.... after that who cares.

3. They squeeze profits from the company, not by making the company profitable through any type of organic growth or increased sales or efficiency, but generally by reducing costs. And what's the biggest cost for most companies? Payroll. That's jobs and wages, and any other employee compensation. So they cut jobs, they cut salaries, they cut benefits.

4. Now that the company looks "profitable", the equity firm takes loans from banks using the company as collateral. And since the interest from those loans is tax deductible, the company looks even more "profitable"... but remember, this profitability is only smoke and mirrors; it's only on paper.

5. The equity firm then has the company (through the board of directors) issue a special dividend which essentially repays the original "investors". From here on out, the equity firm has no real risk... as long as they can continue to make the company look profitable on paper.

6. Now here's the payoff. Now the equity firm dumps the company, usually for much more than they paid for it. They find a sucker, show them the fancy paperwork that "proves" that the company is now profitable..... when in reality, the company is probably in just as much trouble, maybe even more so because it's now saddled with the increased debt from the loans that the equity firm took out. They leave the mess to the new suckers...er...owners.

7. Now that the equity firm has found a sucker...er... buyer, they pocket a percentage of the sales.....usually about 20%.

8. And finally members of the equity firm get to pocket the proceeds from all this and only pay 15% in taxes.... Capital gains don't cha know.

Now here's the real sham. We've all been told time and time again that we just can't raise taxes on these "job creators".
Why? Because if we do, they'll just stop investing. But if you go all the way back to step 1 is this, you'll notice something.. these equity firm partners rarely invest their own money in the first place. Nice "job" if you can get it.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 1:18


By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 1:19

And for dessert...


By: brrrrk on 4/27/12 at 1:44

BenDover said

"And for dessert...


Freidmans assumption (and falacy) is that self interest and social interest are mutually exclusive.... that it's impossible to have one without the other. Consider Jefferson's promotion of the idea of a free education or Franklin's idea of the public library, both of these ideas were based on the idea of BOTH self interest AND public (or social) interest. Both believed that a better educated electorate not only benefited the person getting the free education, but it also benefited the country and by extension benefited them, i. e. Franklin and Jefferson.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 2:49

"Freidmans assumption (and falacy) is that self interest and social interest are mutually exclusive"

No it isn't. Freidman's observation is that people unleashed to work in their own self interest contribute to society's interest. It's a restatement of Smith's Magic Hand ... and an Hayekian criticism of the huge perils of a centrally controlled economy.

By: BenDover on 4/27/12 at 2:54

shb "Smith's Invisible Hand"... confused it with an Al Gore joke.

By: slacker on 4/27/12 at 3:19

Al Gore walks into a bar... orders a ''Salty Poodle''

By: brrrrk on 4/27/12 at 3:24

BenDover on 4/27/12 at 3:49

"No it isn't. Freidman's observation is that people unleashed to work in their own self interest contribute to society's interest. It's a restatement of Smith's Magic Hand ... and an Hayekian criticism of the huge perils of a centrally controlled economy."

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

By: Captain Nemo on 4/27/12 at 5:52

Shut up yogi, we are going to send you to Siberia in 2012.

By: Mike Burch on 4/27/12 at 7:07


All I can do is point out the obvious and hope people use their brains before they vote. The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties are painfully obvious. The Democrats are far from perfect, but at least their stated goals do not include returning women to the Stone Age, discriminating against homosexuals, denying that global warming has finally created the fabled Northwest Passage, pretending that evolution didn't really happen, etc.

The only halfway decent idea I've heard from Republicans recently is the one about smaller government, but as soon as they get elected they pass one insane bill after another, so no one in his/her right mind can possibly believe them.

But it is nice to have the support of someone like you, who seems to actually read and think, so let the bromance continue!


By: Mike Burch on 4/27/12 at 7:14


I assume you believe that GWB was a "legal" president. I'm sure you're aware of the results. Now we are faced with a choice between an intelligent Kenyan and a "legal" dumbed-down robot who will pander to any redneck dumbass for a vote.

I think it's clear that the intelligent Kenyan is by far the better choice. A smart illegal alien president is much better than a legal robot who's programmed to destroy the world in order to get votes from dumbass rednecks.

So if you care about your momma,
Vote for Obama!


By: parnell3rd on 4/28/12 at 5:31

You know dargent7 and loner, did you read the whole post I made?
Or do you always have to start name calling because I don't drinl the same kool-aide as you. I said Washington dc is corrupt.
George Bush is gone but all you can do is blame the previous president, Then in all fairness let's put all the blame on every president we ever had. They all had there faults.
I know for a fact if you would not speak to me to my face like you all do because your all such internet tough guys.

By: parnell3rd on 4/28/12 at 5:44

Dayum I can't spell "drink"

Mr. Burch it does not matter who gets elected, we're screwed. Obama parties like a rock star. He does not take his daily briefing's until 10:30 am

Mitt Romney was Gov. of Mass. I mean, we all know the state that started our war for independence in now a socialist/communist state.

Obama does not care about your Moma. He like all politicians are sick with power. Example: Sen John McCain spent more money to be re-elected to the senate than he did on his presidential race.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 8:42

The troll monkey DNA as divide and now we have a split-character flaw.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 8:45


There is only two reason to reply to any of yogi’s illogical angry outburst; one is to keep his infectious lies from spreading and two just to have a good laugh at the old fool.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 8:53

oops I made a yogi

shb There are only and not is only.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 9:01

By: parnell3rd on 4/28/12 at 6:31

I know for a fact if you would not speak to me to my face like you all do because your all such internet tough guys.


By: yogiman on 4/28/12 at 9:07


As a seemingly intelligent man, based on your posts on this site, you are actually proving your political ignorance by your strong support for Barry Soetoro (a.k.a.Barack Obama).

As an [intelligent] American, how can you so strongly support a man as President of this nation who is obviously an illegal alien who is technically ineligible for that office? One who refuses to factually identify himself because he knows he isn't legally eligible.

I'll agree, George Bush wasn't a good President, but then, we've had a number of Presidents who didn't prove to be good Presidents. Good Presidents seem to be few and far between, but Bush did win the election fairly. Or haven't you looked into the Gore debate? If Gore could only have carried his "home" state he would not have needed to call for a recount so many times.

Where was all of those "extra" votes coming from; that hand behind him? And as I asked before, why didn't Al want the GIs to vote? As the VP, why didn't he make sure the GIs got their ballots in time to vote? Was Al scared they knew him so well they wouldn't vote for him?

It has been shown before you can not win by popular vote but actually win on the Electoral College vote. As it's known, if the Electoral College vote is abolished it will only take a few state's with the majority of the national population to win the election. The other states would be wasting their time to have a popular vote. We would become a one party nation as the communist party is attempting to do now with Barry Soetoro.

I ask my three questions one more time; Why did the Secretaries of State place Barack Obama's name on their State's ballots without assuring he was legally eligible? Why did the the Electoral College vote him into office without assuring he was legally eligible? Why did the Senate approve their vote without assuring he was legally eligible?

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 9:25

HE, He, He, yogi has got his soiled diapers all in a wad.

By: yogiman on 4/28/12 at 10:37

I'm sorry, I should have worded the 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph to read; "It has been shown you CAN win by popular vote but actually win on the Electoral..." instead of "it has been shown before you can not win by popular vote but actual win on the Electoral..."

I forgot about Mr. dumba$$ trying to understand what he is reading.

By: yogiman on 4/28/12 at 12:04

Two shows some of you weekenders might like to see:


and: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEtlnzA60M&feature=g-vrec

Try it, you might like it.

By: Captain Nemo on 4/28/12 at 12:16

The trouble of understanding what yogi’s jumble wording is about, is that he never connects the dots. Come to think about it, his dots are more like drool splattering.

By: govskeptic on 4/28/12 at 2:16

Washington Post reports the entire IRA is worth 5 to 25 Million dollars, so
don't know nor understand how the author comes up with 101 million
in Caymans alone? Can't always rely on msnbc, cnbc and Huffington Post
for research!

By: yogiman on 4/28/12 at 6:22

Can you rely on any news media today, govskeptic? Fox News is the only giving any reliable news but you have to know what they're talking a bout when you hear them after Saudi Arabia bought into them. A lot has changed with them.

By: Ask01 on 4/29/12 at 5:35

OK, I've grown weary of all the back and forth over President Obama's legitimacy.

Not that the subject is unimportant. Since the Constitution mandates presidents be natural born U. S. citizens, if someone deliberately and with malicious intent attained the office through fraudulent means, removing that person and reversing any legislation they originated would be a paramount concern.

However, how can anyone believe, if any substantial and actionable evidence existed proving claims of fraud, that evidence would not have been uncovered, validated, and made available to proper authorities?

(Sorry, yogi, I know this is a very dear subject for you.)

Honestly, given the public's track record for secret keeping, the appetite of the press for political scandal, and the fact, unless Obama was being groomed for this position from birth (highly unlikely) as part of some global conspiracy, requiring fake documents from the moment of birth, does anyone truly believe any and all evidence of foreign birth could be suppressed and hidden given all the resources which have been deployed to uncover the deception?

If there was actual proof, does anyone believe some government agency would not have taken steps already to correct the situation?

Now, to address the subject of this article.

Mitt Romney may be a successful 'businessman,' however, that 'achievement' does not qualify him to be president. When one considers that no 'businessman' succeeds entirely on their own, but needs workers who perform the actual grunt labor, deserving adequate compensation and indeed, job security promoting loyalty to the business to make a venture grow, Mitt's comments in no way elicit any condfidence from me he will effectively lead this country.

Big business and corporations seem to have abandonded the concept of long term growth and smaller profits in favor of massive short term profits.

Many in the middle class have finally recognized the deception. The brazen contempt of a company declaring they must cut jobs to stay afloat while almost simultaneously announcing record profits and obscene bonuses for upper corporate management has been seen for the attack on the middle class it is. The middle class has been embattled for years, but have continued to support, by and large, the Republican party. Those days are over as so many have lost jobs and seen themselves go from being regarded as an upstanding citizen and faithful worker to social parasite and low class thug.

People want jobs. The problem is, they need money to support themselves and families. They are not greedy, jealous, or otherwise resentful of sucessful enteprenuers but they do object to being used as slave labor to generate massive salaries for top executives while being paid a pittance. This is the 21st century and one of the most wealthy nations on Earth, not the dark ages with feudal lords tossing crumbs to the serfs. Or at least, it shouldn't be such.

So far, Mitt Romney, nor any of the Republican candidates has shown any sign they have any common experience with me or they can relate to the working class. The Democratic party as a whole seems to relate better to the needs of the middle class than any Republican.

Sorry for the extended rant, I just had so much I needed to vent. It is time for my morning meds now. Especially the Diovan.

Have a wonderful Sunday folks.

By: yogiman on 4/29/12 at 7:10

Maybe you should quit taking those pills, Ask01. You'll feel better and have more rational thinking.

Regarding Romney not having any experience to be president. I agree, no he doesn't, but he does have excellent experience as a business man. Question: How much experience did Barack Obama have to become President in 2008 when he had not business experience whatsoever?

Ask01, I am making the argument the USA is entering the communist regime today with Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Obama in office. It's obvious Obama is not constitutionally eligible for that office with a Kenyan father (if Barack Obama [Sr.] is, in fact, his father).

Common sense would tell you many members of Congress would be well knowledgeable of the Constitutional requirements you must have to become President of this nation. Yet, no one raised a question about Obama's eligibility.

A fact: Nancy Pelosi sent a nominee affidavit to 49 Secretaries of State worded differently from the affidavit sent to the Hawaiian Secretary of State. Consider the Electoral College voted Obama in office with assuring he was legally eligible and the Senate approved their vote also without assuring he was legally eligible.

A fact: Obama wrote an autobiography titled, "Dreams from My Father". In that book he [supposedly] gave his life's history (t is believed Bill Ayres wrote the book for him (if you know who communist Bill Ayres is)).

Under the laws of 1961, if he was born to his mother in Hawaii, he could only received dual citizenship with Kenyan father. If he was born in Kenya as if believed possibly, he could not receive dual citizenship because his mother, at her age and the laws, could not pass her American citizenship down to him and he would have been born a British subject of Kenya.

He lost citizenship when he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and became an Indonesian citizen. At that time, Indonesia would not accept dual citizenship. He lost his citizenship when he was adopted into Indonesian citizenship.

If he, in fact, has his citizenship back to the USA, he could only do that by becoming a naturalized citizen. Once you loose your natural born citizen status, you cannot get it back.

So to be blunt, on going by Barack Obama's autobiography, there's no way in hell he could legally become President of the USA. He is a usurper.

The fact that Congress allowed it to happen without question, and have allowed it to continue without question makes my wonder, how many American congressmen do we have in office who aren't communists?

By: Ask01 on 4/29/12 at 7:47

Yogi, I respect your right to your opinion, but I must return to the original thought: if evidence which is unimpeachable, reliable, and actionable does exist, with the SCOTUS leaning heavily Republican, and the percentage of Republicans in the legislature, why has this issue not be pushed to the forefront?

Certainly, if US intelligence agencies were able to uncover positive proof of foreign birth, they would make such available to concerned parties and the Republicans, with their unbridled contempt for President Obama would not rest until the matter was resolved.

I view this as akin to the uproar which followed President Bush during his two terms regarding his service with the Air National Guard. Everyone hears or reads what they wish, some even fabricating documents or misrepresenting genuine documents. (Case in point, someone posted during the debate, a document showing then Lt. Bush disqualified from flying status, crowing as if the paper were some sort of smoking gun. The document did indeed classify then Lt. Bush as DNIF, meaning basically duty not involving flying. Anyone who was ever an aircrew member in the US Air Force has had these from time to time due to illness or perhaps a training requirement which expired while on leave or other innocent reason. In short, the allegations against President Bush were simply bogus based on the presented documents.)

In short, continued debate is pointless as neither side will change their position and I will not address the issue further.

At to Mitt Romney and his presidential qualifications, I agree President Obama also had no experience prior to his election. I also agree he had and still has no business experience, but considering the contempt I hold for much of corporate America, with their tactics of eliminating jobs to 'save' the company then posting record profits while awarding huge bonuses to senior executives, business experience cuts no ice with me and many of my middle class contemporaries.

As to communism creeping into America, I respectfully submit you may be confusing socialism with communism. The two are totally different. Many nations in Western Europe have socialism in some form or another, but are still democracies.

I spent nearly three quarters of my 20 years in uniform in Europe and have to say overall many of those nations have higher standards of living than enjoyed by many here in America.

Have a great week yogi.

By: yogiman on 4/29/12 at 8:37

Sorry, Ask01, I can't have a "good week" until the facts are accepted as facts.

I believe socialism is just one step away from communism. But facts are facts. Barack Obama is a fake from the word GO! It is obvious his birth certificate is a fake. It is also obvious no one knows who in the hell he is.

You can throw anything you wish into the argument, but the communist party has been in the US since (roughly) 1902 and have been walking to our capital one step at a time. And they've finally got there.

I agree, it should make one wonder why a man is in office who refuses to identify himself and Congress will not investigate him and the courts will not listen to any case offered. It also makes me wonder why so many common Americans don't question him. Why are they so willing to accept him after all the outright lies he has been caught in.

The only answer I can come up with is: Take your pick. Stupid or ignorance.

I suggest you listen to Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his findings after a 6 month investigation. The facts found should make every American in this nation wonder how and why this has happened. Other than a false birth certificate, his social security number was given to a man from Connecticut. And he has used several others. His registration card has been shown to be a fake.

I'm sure you haven't heard all of the "talkings" I have and I'm afraid race is the main reason on the issue.

I also suggest you listen to Dinesh D'Souza at


By: yogiman on 4/29/12 at 9:09

Two questions, Ask01,

Why is the Russian paper "Pravda" endorsing and supporting Obama? And why does the Communist Party USA's (CPUSA) chairman say the best bet for advancing the Party's goals is to back Barack Obama?

By: Ask01 on 4/29/12 at 10:32

To be perfectly honest, yogi, I don't follow Pravda, nor do I have any knowledge of the CPUSA.

Those fearing a communist takeover of the United States really need to consider what would be required to effect such a feat, and the obstacles which would confront anyone attempting tp impose such a change as Communism or Sharia Law which is what so many others fear.

The checks and balances of our system would impede any political change and set off alarm bells well in advance.

Beyond the protections afforded by our system, one must consider all those who would react violently were any change attempted which would threaten their way of life.

All organized crime would be threatened as would the gangs, backwoods rednecks, and any other what is considered fringe group which would likely be reined in by a more restrictive form of government.

Now, back to Mitt, which is the topic of the article, not Obama, Pravda, CPUSA, Joe Arpiao, or any other subject.

What does he have in common with the average American?

From my perspective and that of most coworkers, the answer is not a single thing.

In fact, it might accurately be said, Mitt Romney has much more in common with the so called 1%ers than any working middle class citizen.

If he is the best the Republican Party can muster, I fear the corporate world and the upper class should prepare for another four years under the same regime.

FYI, I will only address comments regarding the topic from this point forward.

After my afternoon nap, of course.

By: yogiman on 4/29/12 at 11:51

Mitt has in common; accessibility with his fellow Americans. He was not given any favorable access to anything in his road to success.

He is obviously much smarter business wise than Barack Obama. I believe he has the capability to work on getting this country out of the debt Obama has gotten us into deeper in his first illegal term.

First, Obama was not elected as President because of the Electoral College vote or even the popular vote of the people; even If the people voted for someone ineligible to hold that office. That's like declaring you the owner of my farm even though you don't have the deed.

If he is kept in office this year, you can kiss the USA goodbye.