It’s none of your business why or where he keeps his money. But that doesn’t mean you and others can’t ignorantly use it to factor in on your/their vote.

In general, I’d guess he keeps some money overseas if it was earned on overseas investments. I’d also think some money would be kept overseas as a currency investment and hedge on certain investments (it’s a part of any investment strategy when you have money invested global to organized your investments in a way to mittigate currency exchange risk). I’d also think he keeps some money overseas just so it’s easier to use when he travels over seas.

The last reason why I think he would keep money overseas is to hide it from the IRS (after declaring that it’s already there no-less) or because he’s “betting” on the USA collapsing or something of the sort.

But the most important question to ask is why you, after some insuation from the democratic party would find that an important qualification to lead the executive branch.

The question of the election is, has Pres. Obama done a good job with the stewardship entrusted him by the voters, has he accomplished what he said he would, are the government’s finances in a better position now than when he arrived, and has he done an effective job at leading the USA domestically and internationally? The answer is at best, “incomplete”, as he put it.

Now we have Romney, and the question is, has he demonstrated the leadership and talent necessary to bring about success in the past, and do we think he can do a better job at those things listed above than the President? The answer is, “most likely”.

I think it’s my business. I think it’s none of your business to tell me what’s none of my business.

“Most likely”—that’s pretty funny.

The issue of Romney’s offshore accounts is not a simple one to understand. The most obvious answer appears to be that Romney’s financial life has been lived on the cutting edge for many years.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. He does whatever he can, utilizing cutting edge accountuing and finance strategies, to maximize his profits and minimize his taxes and liability risks. Strategies like that at the high end of finance often include utilizing offshore accounts, because the rules of such accounts are relaxed and the disclosures are almost non-existent. In other words, they are a great place to put your money if you don’t want people to be able to get at your money or know just exactly how much money you have.

That’s fine for a businessman or any other person who wants to keep their financial picture private, but it’s not generally considered a good idea for a candidate for high office, because people want to know about the financial picture of such candidates before they vote for them. Mitt’s refusal to give that information makes him extremely unusual among candidates and I guess people are just going to have to ask themselves whether that failure to disclose the exact parameters of his wealth is a deal breaker or not.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts

Mitt Romney could end all speculation and suspicion about his finances by releasing the same number of tax returns his father did. He won’t, because it will show that he paid no taxes for many years, hiding his money in tax havens, along with drug cartels, like the Cayman Islands. He probably took advantage of the 2009 Tax Amnesty offered by the government and paid up, so he can now say he ‘paid his taxes’.

Prove me wrong Mitt and Harry Reid both wrong Mitt–release your taxes. Otherwise, the appearance of hiding wrongdoing will only increase.

I think I’ll die of old age before the convention ends. Now Clinton’s talking. It’s a good speech, but I’m ready to hear him say Goodnight and God bless America. I bet Michelle is thinking “shut up, shut up, shut up.”

Thanks for the #4 explanation.

What about those Castro twins from Texas? Stanford undergrad, Harvard law, both of them together, and careers of public service. Go Abuela! They are impressive.

And of course I adore Kathleen Sebelius. I love that she doesn’t dye her hair and looks so good. She knows healthcare, and it was a great talk. (Disclaimer that she hired my research team when she was insurance commissioner.)

A lot of the women looked madeover. Every picture I’ve seen of Lilly Ledbetter, she is wearing glasses and not the fancy haircut. But they let Elizabeth Warren keep her glasses and her professorial hairdo.

Michelle O’s comment about their student loans being more than their mortgage helped a lot of folks relate:(

So again Blake, because you said it it is so. Nonsense. Massachusetts was near the bottom in job creation when Mitt was governor. If as you say, his finances and taxes are all legit, and perfectly rational and legal, then what is he afraid of? Virtually his entire party has asked him–begged him to release his tax returns, then voters could rely on that and not your interpretation or mine.

Don – It all depends on what stats and measures you use. I lived in Massachusetts during that time and before and after and felt he did a better job than either the person before or after. He was willing to fight against some very entrenched unions, the budget was balanced and the state seemed fine. As for taxes, I tend to care less – why does it matter if he paid taxes or not if he is doing what is legal. If I could figure out a way to not pay taxes legally I would, as would most people.

If he doing what is legal then he should have no problem releasing his taxes.

I want to know who’s coming to visit me in the home. I thought it was Thursday all day yesterday and that Clinton was introducing the president. I thought “man, those Democrats are going to be there all night.”

Don, Mitt Romney didn’t hide his money with drug cartels. It’s more boring than that. The Democrats know he hasn’t done anything illegal; they just want to make it official to the American people that he’s so rich he couldn’t possibly relate. It’s a distraction. The president might beat Romney in the election, but they’re not going to find that smoking gun, although according to Time, they’re would love to. The president would like to destroy his opposition.

Couple notes from yesterday: The president of Costco gave a good speech in support of the president. But he did say one thing “America needs to be a country where everybody follows the same rules of the road”—-I thought “except illegal immigrants.”

Elizabeth Warren gave a really good speech. I thought “why isn’t this woman running for president?” But she said something about Republicans just wanting to help themselves and their powerful friends and I thought “I’m a Republican and I don’t have any powerful friends. Are we to assume Democrats DON’T have powerful friends?”

She said that if Romney’s elected, there will be a $2000 tax hike. True, anybody? I don’t know. She also said “President Obama gets it. . .we know the economy doesn’t grow from the top down, but from the middle class OUT (my emphasis added) and the bottom up, that’s how we create jobs and reduce the debt.” I thought the economy grew when businesses prospered and employed others and I have supported the tax breaks for big business. Now, I’m not sure. Is she right?

At one point she referred to a country where anybody can roll up their sleeves and build a business and (once again) I had a thought: “unless they make millions?”

So many movie stars popping up here and there. I know there are Republican stars—where were they? Eva Longoria was well spoken and properly serious. She said something I liked “Republicans want smaller government, but they want to be in our bedrooms.” She’s right, guys.

Patricia Arquette said “you saw celebrities at the RNC, you’ll see them here, too.” Uh….I only saw one old guy…being funny and old-age eccentric.

I really like Anderson Cooper. At one point last night, a reporter tried to pin down a Republican leader about the platform changes (there was an uproar and the Democrats added “God” back and included the point about Jerusalem). The guy just kept saying the same thing and finally Cooper snickered (he’s like a teenage boy when he does that) and said “nothing to see here….move along.”

Bill Clinton made some really good points. He’s a master communicator, hands down. What I loved is he said the president is out to prove to the world that Democracy isn’t a blood sport, citing his choice of Republican members of the cabinet and Hillary as Secretary of State.

He said something I thought was disingenuous and funny: “I’ve never seen anything like how the right hates the president.” I remember my liberal friends hating George Bush, fearing what he might do. I hate the hate. Actually, though, I kind of hated Bill Clinton after I realized how much he’d screwed around on his wife.

To me, the most striking part of last night was the numbers Clinton threw out. Republicans ran congress 28 out of the last 52 years and created 24 million jobs while the Democrats ran congress 24 years and created 42 million jobs. Huh? How did they figure that? He cited a lot of numbers and money and I got confused there and stopped listening.

I am one of the true undecideds. Last week I was impressed with Romney and thought “hmmm….maybe I’ll vote for him.” Last night, despite my quibbles above, I was pretty impressed with what I heard. It’s true that the president inherited a mess. I don’t feel better off than I was, but I might not even if McCain had been elected.

What I think it’s coming down to, for me, is social programs. The Republicans are kind of heartless and make big statements about people needing to work and we need less government and programs. But I disagree with that. I don’t like welfare, as a distant concept, but when a country gets as big as ours, we simply must help the less fortunate and risk the deadbeats taking advantage. I don’t want to take any steps back on gay rights or abortion.

I think a lot of Republicans, including my husband, long for the good old days when we had our innocence and our convictions, ie homosexuality is a sin. When everything was black and white.

Those issues are where I lean Democrat. Where I lean Republican is that Mitt Romney is probably the most decent candidate in a long, long time. Well, since Jimmy Carter. Who was an ineffective president. I’ve made comparisons to Obama and Carter, but I wonder how Romney parallels President Carter. He’s not making the grandiose claims that Carter did, but perhaps a truly religious (he was called a saint last night) man cannot make hard decisions when leading the world’s greatest country of millions of people.

I still don’t know who the hell I’m voting for. Honestly, I’m considering not voting at all and just staying in my closet that day.

Love your musings Anne, honest and heartfelt.

Let me make one more point (I’m the Bill Clinton of MM): my husband is solidly supporting Mitt Romney. Nothing will sway him. One big problem in our marriage has been his dictatorial exercise of his priesthood and this is reflective of Mitt’s problem. As a woman, I’m reluctant to vote for somebody who thinks I’m a little woman who needs to shut up. So Bill’s support of Romney has me thinking “screw you, I’m voting for Obama.” I wonder how many women will do that because they’re mad at their husbands. Furthermore, female baby boomers who have been married for 30 or more years are disenchanted in their marriages. AARP did a story on the problem of divorce in my generation. When I left Bill, you wouldn’t believe how many of my friends expressed envy at my life alone.

I don’t know if anybody is looking at that phenomenon, but the Republicans are trying to appeal to women. They do come off as a white mans’ party. It’s a thought.

#12:
As for money in other countries — unask your question. It assumes that Romney keeps his money in other countries — but his funds are managed by a blind trust so he cannot control where it is invested.

Mr. Romney already made it clear that your “defense” is a falsehood, Blake. As Romney put it in 1994, “The blind trust is an age-old ruse, if you will, which is to say you can always tell a blind trust what it can and cannot do. You give a blind trust rules.”

#25 But Nick, that was before ‘extreme makeover’Romney, so it doesn’t count. I think think that there should be a debate between two holograms of Mitt, debating each other.

I just think Mitt has taken so many different positions that he could run against himself.

Nov 18, 2008 Op Ed NYT by Mitt Romney

‘If GM, Ford, and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.’

Now he denies that he said that.

The American auto industry is booming, even in a sluggish economy, and millions are still employed because of it. What does that say about Mitt and his business judgement, not to mention his honesty?

Easy choice. Our president, Barack Obama.

Peter, I was referring to a couple of years ago when we paid a bundle in taxes and relatives who hadn’t worked received a big fat check from the government. The poor would rather be rich, sure, but a lot of them would NOT rather be middle class because they’d have to work for their money and give up freebies like food stamps.

THAT harangue being said, I’m very grateful for the help loved ones have received as they’ve started out in their lives.

This is a dilemma as far as social programs go. A lot of people think that’s the way they’re supposed to live. It’s a fine line we walk there. I suppose we should err on the side of mercy.

I saw a program about, I think, Denmark–maybe it was Holland. They were labeled the happiest people on earth because they give the government 60% of their wages and have free health care and long vacations. They don’t have big houses and a ton of stuff, but they’re happy and healthy. I think that would be easier in a small country with little diversity.

“I just think Mitt has taken so many different positions that he could run against himself.”

Exactly what we need in a President of the good ole USofA.

That’s not quite true, queuno. Time magazine did a good job of explaining what he actually did at Bain. He didn’t chop up ALL the companies and lay off EVERYBODY. At least half the time, he made them better and some companies are doing well today. He thought long and hard about each decision.

Devyn, I’m glad to hear another side of Romney’s time as governor.

I told Bill this morning that if one is a Democrat, Romney’s speech sucked and if one is a Republican, the president’s speech sucked. Bill basically thinks Obama sucks. I don’t know very many people who are able to look at the issues objectively. It’s very funny how Republicans and Democrats say “oh, that’s no big deal” when confronted with a misstatement or incongruity. It’s a “how many fingers do you see?” situation. I’m not buying it from either party.

Yesterday, I spoke with another, entirely different friend than the ones I’ve cited here. She echoed my feelings. She’s objective. The Republicans sometimes come off as heartless uncaring money-grubbing white men. In the case of this election, you can add “Mormon” to the mix, which, to me, is not necessarily a plus.

Democrats come off as irresponsible idiots, catering to welfare cases and celebrities. They ALL come off as liars.

Bill changed the channel at the beginning of the president’s speech. I watched everything up to that, turned my back for a minute and there he was eating chinese and watching some dumb movie. He said something like “you know who Obama’s talking to, don’t you? Did you see who was in his audience?” I raised my left eyebrow, as I am wont to do, and said “women and minorities?”

He said he was thinking of people who want to keep the handouts coming. But I’m increasingly thinking of Republicans as blustery white men who are totally clueless about their loss of power. “Why can’t I see that Bill is making perfect sense?” He seems to ask.

I read something interpreting the first part of Obama’s speech as mean. I didn’t hear it. I thought it was smart and funny. “If you’re sick of hearing me say “I approve this message, so am I.”

“Satan, your kingdom must come down.” I have had that song in the back of my head as I’ve watched both candidates (I wondered if Ryan’s marriage is really as happy as it seems and if he had to go on his hands and knees to kiss Romney’s ring—as in a scene from “Boss.”) Republicans think Obama is Satan; Mormon Republicans, in particular, think he’s the anti-Christ. Romney hasn’t given Democrats that avenue to criticize. I loved how speechmakers last night had to acknowledge that Romney is a good person. Which is a big deal to me. My bias against Mormon white men aside, I’m pretty sure they’re not going to have any interns with stained dresses or track any of his money to illegal activities. No White House tapes or Watergate.

Which, guys, has made them have to address the issues! I loved the president’s speech; I didn’t see anything mean about it. Hyperbole, yes. But I can see through that.

And I’m still going back and forth. I could not vote and not impact what happens to Utah’s electoral votes in the least. But I think this year, the popular vote will matter. I have never considered my vote more carefully.

Romney was first in line to sign Cut, Cap and Balance. He’s been calling for such poilices since his book came out. (See Closer To Home’s eloquent summation on this thread)As CraigS summarized earlier on this thread, and which many of us did so last week as well, the 2012ers don’t need to be popping off on this issue, since it was in constant flux.Romney didn’t support the Boehner Plan last week, he applauded Boehner for holding firm on raising taxes. That is different thing entirely, but some Romnots are to0 obtuse to get that.Nobody likes this bill and even those elected officials who have to vote for it, I doubt really like it. So what do we have?Romney staking out his positions in his book, committing to them by signing the CCB pledge.He issues a supportive statement for not raising taxes in a lousy economy.He’s avoided looking like a fool for commenting on negotiations he didn’t have all the info on.He issued a statement he’s disappointed in the bill, forced on us, because the President failed to lead on the issue.I think he played it straight and perfect. If he injected himeslf anyother way in to the debate it would have backfired on him.