you're kidding??? he has money in a mutual fund that put money into the hands
that put money into the hands of his eventual opponent? lame headline. romney is
rich, he has money all over the world. if he didn't have money in fannie mae,
i'd be shocked. too bad gingrich has taken more money out of fannie and freddie
than romney ever will.
Investing in a business shows that at some level you think it will make a
profit. It is a very different act than taking large consulting fees from it.
For one thing, since the fact of the matter is the problem is that Fannie did
not have enough money and the US had to save it, it is consulting fees and not
investors who created its problem. Unlike Gingrich, Romney was not syphoning
off Fannie's funds.
There is a world of difference between passively investing in a mutual fund that
includes Fannie and Freddie as part of the portfolio and being paid by those
same institutions to use your past experience in Congress as a lobbyist, er,
historian. This article is a raises a non-issue.
I am certainly no Romney fan, but it doesn't appear that he has done anything
illegal. Taking advantage of any available tax break is what we all do each
year when we claim deductions for dependents, mortgage, charitable giving...I'll vote against Romney because of his positions on issues, not because
of his tax returns.
What a misleading headline. it sounds like Romney intentionally invested in
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.1. His money is in a blind trust. He does not
know what is in his investments.2. The Freddie Mac investment is part of
a complex mutual fund. How many of us know all the assets in our mutual funds.
Romney is honorable in his duties. He is in compliance with the
law. Why is this an issue?
So Romney invested with his personal money into Fannie and Freddie........Barack
has invested with "all of our money" into a Money Pit that starts with
"Stimulus, Solyndra, ATF (see Holder), Golf, Vacations and lavish parties.
Who's most responsible??? Mitt!
yes romney has money invested in companies. why is his income being blasted and
not the others ? the liberal media is biased and making up stories in which
romney cannot get the country to understand he is an honorable man. i trust
Why is this an issue? It looks like Romney was pouring money into Freddie and
Fannie to pay Newt's salary. I don't know of any honest person or business in
the country who doesn't try to minimize the tax burden on themselves and/or
their business. The press is trying to make it look like it was a sin to invest
in Freddie and Fannie. It was not and I don't know why they make it an issue
other than to make it appear that Mitt has done something wrong.
Romney invested in Fannie and Freddie. Gingrich took $1.6 million from them,
Bush gave them a ton of money and McCain suspended his presidential campaign at
the time to fly back to DC and vote for them to get a ton of money. Of course
they all want to run from that now. That is the main thing that bothers me, not
that they did it, but that they run from it.Why doesn't Romney run
on his record as governor? He was a great governor and should be proud of all
his accomplishments instead of running from them.
The returns show that Mitt and Ann Romney, who are worth from $190 million to
$250 million, earned $21.7 million in 2010 and paid a 13.9 percent tax rate,
lower than that of a person earning $50,000. The total amount the Romneys paid
in taxes in 2010 was about $3 million.Along with releasing their tax
returns from 2010, the Romneys released estimates for their 2011 taxes, which
have not yet been filed. The estimates show an income of $20.9 million, with the
couple paying a tax rate of 15.4 percent, closer to the estimate that Romney
gave at a January 17 press conference. The Romneys' income came entirely from
investments, mostly from capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than
other types of income.Those investments are littered across a series
of accounts in places stretching from America to the Cayman Islands and
Luxembourg and even include a now-closed Swiss bank account. In 2010
Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity, with half of that going to the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormon church.
I would rather hear from Mitt Romney what financial magic tricks he has up his
sleeve to help the US economic situation. Maybe he could help us all to avoid
having a tax burden greater than 15%.
I'm excited that Romney is Smart with his money and understands how to make
income - not how to go into debt. This is what we need as a leader. If Romney
was poor, didn't understand finances or how to enlist investors into his capital
funds, then I would be disappointed. As long as he's paying all the taxes
required under the law, then he's legit. Who would want an economic ignoramus
running the country today...
Whether or not you like Mitt Romney, a close look at the fast and loose printed
word will tell you that the authors of this article are less than honest in
their telling of the story.So is the DMN in the headline.Romney
attacked Gingrich for his lobbying for the questionable Fannie and Freddie and
acting to support their questionable practices.Romney invested in a
mutual fund with some assets in the two. Even at that, the headline is false by
the admission of its author. One fund had $100,00 in it. The other had $250,000
in it. Hmmm... $350,000, not $500,000.You may argue that I'm parsing
words, but what bothers me is not the challenges to Romney, but the loose play
with the truth. It is not the same to invest in something as it is to shill for
something, but Gingrich should get a pass and Romney not? Is there an agenda
here or what?Romney paid $3M in taxes in 2010. Is that wrong when
there are and have been sitting legislators in congress indicted for tax
evasion. Why is it immoral in this country to succeed?
All the tax shelters and such make we ask one question. For Latter-Day Saints,
are the tems "legal" and "ethical" supposed to mean the
same? I expect more from card holding members, much more.
This information is completely irrelevant. The investment in Freddie was made
by a manager in a blind trust. Romney had NOTHING to do with the decision.
Is it illegal to invest your own money in Freddie? What government laws has he
been guilty of breaking? Hard for me to believe that Republicans are critical
of Romney's wealth when they promote capitalism. Those that make money because
of their strengths and do it legally is what America is about.
OK. I am a state retiree. The state retirement fund invests money everywhere.
They may or may not invest in Fanny Mae. I don't have a clue. I'm bad, right?
Give me a break.
"Romney campaign officials said Monday that a trustee handles the
investments and that Romney had no role in choosing or managing them."And will this be the excuse he will use should he be elected President
when something in the executive branch of the Government goes wrong? He had
someone else handle it and had no role in it?
It is ridiculous to make this an issue. Investing in Freddie and Fannie (even
if Romney had chosen those investments himself, which he did not) would not in
any way make him responsible for the failings of those institutions. On the
contrary, it would strengthen them. Gingrich, on the other hand, received large
payments from them, which would weaken them. Payments for advice? The advice
certainly didn't help. Millions of Americans are suffering from the housing
crisis touched off by the poor decisions of Fannie and Freddie.By the way,
MANY DEMOCRATS in Congress and the Obama administration were right in the thick
of the Fannie and Freddie mess, profiting from the tactics that led to the
Billions of people invested in Freddie and Fannie through various funds. It's
part of the reason the whole real estate scandal was such a shocker. In fact I would be more suspicious if he hadn't invested in them... because
that would mean he may have known what was going to happen.
Romney is "being spun around like a top". I hope that he has a
"thick skin". If he wins Florida, a week away, then it's "game
What are you guys? OWS in secret?Sloooow news day. Yawn....
If people object to a tax rate of 15%, they should lobby their Senators and
Congresspeople to change that rate. Romney didn't create that rate. He just uses
it as all law abiding taxpayers should.
Investing in, and lobbying for are two totally different things! Investing in,
is as a private investor, you are taking a chance, and in that chance you hope
to reap profits from your investment into an American Government entity, much
like savings bonds. If it's a guarenteed investment who wouldn't be smart enough
to invest in it? It's called diversifying your investments with some guarenteed
investments, and that is SMART, not evil! Secondly, Lobbying for Freddy or
Fannie, is bad because they were losing so much money! Especially if you are
reaping big bucks by doing so, something Gingrich has yet to be proven of. I
still believe strongly and mark my words the day Santorum pulls out of the race
Romney should name him as his running mate to show he is a CONSERVATIVE running
for president on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES!
Romney invested in Freddie and Fannie - so what! So did thousand of investors -
and like myself took a loss not only in freddie but in other investments as
well.. Two thirds of a personal investment portfolio took a hit in this lastest
economic mess - a mess that seems to have no end. We desperatly need
intelligent, good, and wise leaders. Virtues that are in short supply in
"And will this be the excuse he will use should he be elected President
when something in the executive branch of the Government goes wrong? He had
someone else handle it and had no role in it?"No clarkkent,
that is obama's MO aka operation fast and furious.
'I'll vote against Romney because of his positions on issues...' - Jack-P | 4:21
a.m. Jan. 24, 2012 And what position... is that? **'Mitt Romney steers clear of Ohio health, union issues' - By Dan
Sewell - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11 Then:
**'Mitt Romney reverses himself, supports anti-union law' - By Philip Elliott -
AP - Published by DSNews - 10/26/11 Mitt Romney factually can CHANGE
his position on the issues... in x24 HOURS. So, I cannot
see what 'position' you are supporting him, on. Also:
WASHINGTON Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has criticized rival
Newt Gingrich for earning more than $1.6 million in consulting fees from Freddie
Mac even though he had invested as much as $500,000 in the U.S.-backed lender
and its sister entity, Fannie Mae. - article So, Mitt Romney was
AGAINST Freddie/Fannie... AFTER, he invested $500,000...
into it. This, is a contradiction. A Double Standard. And is evidence of what Romney might/might not do... if
elected into office. See it as a 'non-issue' if you like. He might change his mind about it...later regardless.
If Republicans continue to embrace this OWS-type rhetoric spawned by Perry and
Gingerich, it will prove to be the chess move that gives Gingerich the candidacy
but will be the checkmate when he loses to Obama in the general election.
Funny... Like almost everyone else posting on here... I thought that was what
money managers were supposed to do... advise and to place the money entrusted to
them in the best places in order to make returns for thier clients. As far as
who those investors might possibly be in both Fredie and Fannie would include
thousands if not millions of other investors...and possibly every U.S. Senator
or Congressman. I don't see how either Romney or Gingrich could be called on
the carpet for where thier investment advisors suggested they put thier money.
That people is what they do. They have a fiduciary responsibility to thier
clients that is totally different than the ficduciary obligation of someone like
a politician named Barnie who headed the Congressional oversight commitee over
both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...So the reality is that this story is extremely
stretching the envelope to even postulate that either Newt or Mitt had anything
to do with thier collapse.
@ ClarkKent: What he said is not an excuse. We make excuses for something we did
that was wrong. Romney did nothing wrong...unless you consider it wrong to earn
alot of money, invest in a blind trust with a mutual fund, pay the legal amount
of taxes, and donate millions to charity. Tell us, for what bad behavior was he
@ Cougarblue:"All the tax shelters and such make we ask one question.
For Latter-Day Saints, are the tems "legal" and "ethical"
supposed to mean the same? I expect more from card holding members, much
more.Like 20% tithing? If 10% tithing is ethical, wouldn't 20% be
If Romney indeed made $20.9 million in 2010 and only paid $1.5 million in
contributions to the church, that means he paid a tithing of... 7% (or less).
Not a 10% tithe. Only 7%.To LDS, shorting your tithe by
several million dollars should be a pretty big deal.This should be a
BIG DEAL to any faithful LDS supporting Romney.A man can not rob
'A man can not rob God.' - UtahCentrist | 12:09 p.m. Jan. 24, 2012
Possible. But apparently, if you dontate to enough 'charity' you
can pay less in taxes than average Americans... **Romney paid $3M
in federal income tax in 2010 By Stephen Braun AP Published by DSNews
01/24/12 At the same time, Romney gave nearly $3 million to charity
about half of that amount to the Mormon Church which helped lower his effective
tax rate to a modest 14 percent...' - article **'I'll vote against
Romney because of his positions on issues...' - Jack-P | 4:21 a.m. Jan. 24, 2012
Jack, I apologize. I thought you were saying that you
were going to vote FOR Romney because of his positions. When Romney
can change his support on positions in just x24 hours... I question
the logic of supporting someone, who might not support you...
tommorow. **'Mitt Romney pledges opposition to gay marriage' - CBS
News - 08/04/11 Then: 'It's also notable because Romney
was not always such a strong opponent of gay rights. In 1994, he sent a letter
to a gay Republican group saying he would be a stronger advocate for gay
rights...' - Same Article
Very interesting comment......."legal" v.s. "ethical"......
where do Mormons stand????
I would not that Romney investing in Fannie and Freddie did not give him any tax
breaks. It might have reduced his taxable income because there were more
profitable places his money could have been invested, and thus reduced the
amount of taxes he actually paid, but it was not a way to get tax breaks. His
tax rate is largely a result of itemizing his donations.
Could someone please inform Pagan about mutual funds. How many investments
there are in any given mutual fund and who watches them. I am not sure he has
one and knows how they work. There is a big difference between
investments by a mutual fund and being a "historian" for Freddie and
Fannie at the rate of 25,000 dollars a month. I am pretty sure that
I have some investments through my mutal fund that I probably don't love. But I
don't have time to follow every single investment. I have a job. I pay someone
else to look after my mutual fund investments.
The point that this illustrates what is at the root of the mortgage crisis is a
good one. Most of these investments were by Romney's blind trust, which he has
no direct say in what it does (although its managers may at times try to not
invest in things he disaproves of) into mutual funds. The whole thing about
mutual funds is they buy in all sorts of stock. These are the types
of complexed financial instuments that made 15 people in Warren, Michigan
defaulting on their loans into a disruption of financial institutions nation
wide. There are good questions of whether mutual funds are good for
the investor oversight funtions of the stockmarket, but this goes way beyond
How much tax did Newt pay? How did he invest his income? Were his investments
smart and made him more money, if yes, then his capital gains tax rate would be
the same as Mitt's. Mitt paid $3,000,000 in taxes and donated about that same
amount to his self-appointed charities - how much $ did Newt give to charities?
I don't really care... but if you ask your opponent to show you his, then you
need to be ready to show yours. Likewise, Newt took money FROM Fannie, but
Mitt, if anything, put money INTO Fannie - there is a difference.
It also seems odd that people are now calling on us to vote for or against
Romney based on assumptions about his standing before God, which we do not know.
Two points. 1 we are voting for a political not a religious
leader. Romney's standing in the Church is not an issue in the election. 2, if
Romney regularly transfered stocks at the time he aquired them as tithing, the
way his income is being figured for tithing purposes and for tax purposes may be
significantly different. There are other possible factors. I have been taught
to never assume, and that is what people who think they can assume that his
federal tax income is the income he should pay tithing on are doing.
From the Washington post:Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his
vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010
and $20.9 million last year virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest
from investments.None came from wages. Instead, Romney collected millions
in capital gains from a profusion of investments, as well as stock dividends and
interest payments.The couple gave away $7 million in charitable
contributions over the past two years, including at least $4.1 million to the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Me:Math 21.7 +
20.9 = 42.6 tithes = 4.1 Close enough, Possible, he may have over
paid in prior years. We still don't know who the anonymous donor for the Nauvoo
Temple is. Could that be a reason he doesn't want to expose his earlier tax
'There is a big difference between investments by a mutual fund and being a
"historian" for Freddie and Fannie at the rate of 25,000 dollars a
month.' - Mick | 1:02 p.m. Jan. 24, 2012 You mean...
like a $374,000 speaking 'fee?' **'Mitt Romney downplays $374,000 in
speaking fees as 'Not Very Much' - By Ryan Grim and Luke Johnson - Huffington
Post - 01/17/12 "WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has a new definition
of "not much": $374,327. On Tuesday, the Republican presidential
candidate finally admitted that the effective tax rate he has been paying for
the last several years is likely below that of middle-class workers..." -
article What is the difference between Newt and Romney
financially? Answer: Not much.
I'm a Mormon, a card carrying Mormon. And I love my fellow members (brothers and
sisters). But sometimes you embarrass me! How on earth do any of you presume to
know what is a full tithing for Mitt. And how can you possibly believe that
paying the amount of income tax you legally owe can be unethical? Who are the
ethics police? Do you have a form "1040 Ethical" to supplement the
government issued one? Really! Some people think income tax itself is unethical!
Just say you don't like Mitt Romney and you will vote for someone else and be
done with it!
Utah Centrist... the tangible word tied to tithing is increase. The church
does not get into defining that to be either Gross or Net... leaving that to the
tithe payer... but if you look at it from...the perspective of receiving Gross
blessings versus Net Blessings then you might have some validity of some
nature... for some kind of an argument... which you are obviously trying to
convey is hidden in some covert undertaking on Romney's part...although I
certainly don't think that proves anything about robbing God.
I agree, what a non-story. And don't most people try to get all the legal
deductions they can at task time. Why would he be any different. Should he be
hammered because he donated to charitable causes, even the LDS church? All of us
should donate to charity and if we get a tax break, not against that. It has
shown over time this incentive does work (increases people giving to charity).
Meanwhile President Obama and Newt Gingrich gave less than 2.5% of their earned
wealth to charity. This article really bugged me, it was much ado about nothing.
Isn't it time for "another" one day visit to Utah for
"another" fund raiser Mitt? Poor man needs help Utah!
Big difference in investing money into a struggling company and taking large
consulting fees out of the company in exchange for political access.
Howard Beal: Another Deseret News article showed that Barack Obama paid a HIGHER
percentage of income to charity than the generous amount Mitt Romney paid.
Pagan-Check and see how much Bill Clinton has made on speaking fees.
I can tell you that he made 82 million dollars from 2000-2006. Are you against
Joan Watson, maybe lots of investors took a hit, but Romney had lots to invest
in other places, and those who took the hit probably didn't get to take money to
places like the Cayman Islands, either, I bet. And if that's the case, why did
so many politicians with diversified portfolios think the average person with a
little 401k could make do if their investments up and died while their SSA
accounts, promised and counted upon to help keep their golden years from
tarnishing, became privatized? Of course, this may not mean a thing to the
millionaires and billionaires, but to the guy in a little frame house somewhere
who just retired, I bet it's a really big deal. But he's the guy Mitt has
trouble connecting with. Too bad, he might have really liked him, too.
He would get money FROM Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae if those two funds did what
they were supposed to do, that is, produce a positive income. It is the reason
people invest in something. One rarely puts money into a stock or other fund in
hopes that it will decline in value. So we can be sure Mitt or his surrogate did
excpect to make money with these two funds. Also, even with a blind
trust, can one not tell the manager not to place certain things in the
portfolio? Mitt may, for instance, feel strongly about earning money from
alcohol or tobacco products, so he may tell his surrogate not to invest in them.
He could choose that---or these as well. I am sure, if he wished it, he could
make some decision unless he's completely powerless, which I'm sure isn't the
Give me strength! Regardless of the context of the issues regarding Romney's
professional history, taxes, contributions, investments, whatever - the premise
of the attacks came from "Conservative Republican Capitalists."
Everyone realizes this, right? Right? Of all the gutter running divisive
players in the public arena, Newt is proving to be the unprincipled character
from which his historical reputation precedes him. But South Carolina bought it
hook line and sinker.