An aspect of the 2012 “Class Warfare” election debate – Compares the Democrats to …



Some of you have already commented here – the comments are interesting. You know, I had a thought yesterday:

Do you think it is possible that the U.S. would be better off with a new president? Do you think it is possible?





14 thoughts on “An aspect of the 2012 “Class Warfare” election debate – Compares the Democrats to …

  1. I hate “career Barnacles”. People who have never created anything of value, or never have used their skills to generate value. I doubt in the long-run that this very looooonngg fight against American “traitors” who live middle-class lives abroad will end abruptly with a new President. But one thing I DO like about Romney is that he has a business background and he knows how to make money. Obama on the other hand, has never made a penny in his life. He just takes it from people who are well off and gives it to [mostly] people who are too lazy to work.

    Whatever happened to the Obama “Revolution”? šŸ™‚

  2. During George W. Bush’s presidency, the income tax rates were reduced, and the limit on the foreign tax credit for the alternative minimum tax was eliminated. A large exemption to the estate tax was established and its rate was reduced. However, the exit tax was created, the FBAR form became more detailed, and the FBAR penalties began to be enforced.

    During Barack Obama’s presidency, the IRS turned its focus to foreign bank accounts, the OVDP/OVDI was created, FATCA was enacted, and additional measures against Americans abroad are being discussed, such as the revocation of passports for those who owe taxes and a possible enforcement of the Reed amendment.

    I think that everyone here agrees that Obama’s policies regarding taxes for Americans abroad have been much worse than Bush’s. And in my opinion, Obama has been worse than Bush in every aspect. The only area where I thought that Obama would be better was regarding the wars, but I see that there was little difference.

    I think that Mitt Romney would be sympathetic to Americans abroad for several reasons. He has extended family members in Mexico who are US citizens (Obama has extended family members in Kenya but they are not US citizens). Romney has foreign bank accounts that turn his income tax forms into an encyclopedia, so he knows about how onerous the reporting requirements are. He is proposing territorial taxation for US corporations, so he might agree with residence-based taxation for US citizens. And of course, he is Republican so he favors lower taxes.

    Romney has experience as a businessman and as a governor, and most of his proposals seem logical and well-intentioned. To me, Obama’s proposals seem populist and irresponsible, and due to his past actions I don’t trust him. I’m not a very big fan of Mitt Romney, but yes, I think that the US would be better with him as a president than with Obama. For Americans abroad, I can’t imagine how Obama could be better.

  3. Both choices are bad for ex-pats. Romney isn’t going to step up to the plate for ex-pats. Has he ever mentioned ex-pats during the campaign? None that I can remember.

    They are both bad for the US in their own special ways.

    If they don’t balance the US’s books, strengthen the middle class, and come to grips with its new role in the world, the US’s decline continues unabated.

  4. @John, I agree that both men will have bigger fish to fry than expat taxation problems. Like geeez, I think it helps that Romney has business experience, because he at least knows where wealth comes from and that you can’t fund government via the printing press.
    Mitt has a weak campaign and I think it is a pity he isn’t stressing his experience and his character more aggressively. Here is something that was part of his 2008 campaign and should be part of this one, although I haven’t seen it yet. This is something he did while CEO of Bain, when a partner of his had a wrenching family issue. It speaks very highly of his character. Here is the story:

    And here is a 2008 ad about it, 30 seconds only:

  5. @John

    It is certain that Obama is and will be worse for everybody (including expats). I don’t even believe that the members of Democrats Abroad will or could vote for him

    We know that Obama has deliberately attacked U.S. citizens abroad.

    At the moment, I suspect that Romney has no position on U.S. citizens abroad. Romney strikes me as a pragmatist. I think it is very likely that Romney would understand that citizenship-based taxation is hurting the U.S. itself.

    Therefore, I believe that we need to try to find a way to get Romney’s attention.

    How about Expats For Romney!


    Expats against Obama!

    Either one might be good.

    What we know for sure is that the reelection of Obama would be bad for the U.S., bad for Expats and bad for the world.

    Your choice is Romney or Obama, and there is no contest.

    Here is post that I wrote about this a long time ago.

  6. @renouncecitizenship – I will say one thing for Romney, he had the guts to sign the health care reform in Massachusetts, which is were I’m from originally. In Mass 98% of people are now covered. However Romney realises he’ll lose that’s why he’s saying that he’s going to repeal Obamacare. The flip flopping does concern me and having one position this week and different one next week doesn’t build confidence.

    My fear is Romney is going to get ripped in the debates. Obama is a better speaker. We’ll see it’s Harvard vs Harvard.

    It’s back to basics I’m afraid, ex-pats don’t generate votes or money. We’ll just benefit if Romney turns the citizenship-based taxation issue into it’s a “hurting America” issue not because anyone cares about ex-pat issues.

  7. Despite the best efforts of all of us, things are going to get much much worse. Schumer’s comment that people are expatriating without being rightly penalized is chilling. This only confirms my commitment to staying below the radar, avoiding the USA and having no contact with anything associated with the USA. I reread my Canadian citizenship paper. No Canadian government is going to turn a Canadian citizen or his or her records to the USA.

  8. As far as I can tell, I don’t see anyone in the political arena who is going to represent -protect- us. And of course public opinion will not be in our side while we are being presented as tax cheaters. Nevertheless we must continue to try to make our voices heard.

  9. Shadow – yeah, actually it did turn out like the Russian Revolution, but only a couple of US Citzens were killed overseas, accused of being “terrorists.”

    Obama HAS relatives in the US, but they are too busy collecting Welfare. No joke.. google it.

  10. @geeez, I know about Obama’s Kenyan relatives in the US too. What I meant to say is that Obama’s relatives abroad are not US citizens so they are not subject to US taxation, but Romney’s relatives in Mexico are. I wonder if they get any help from Romney’s accountants.

  11. I am not a fan of either side of the double-headed one party system of the US. Both sides have done their fair share of damage to expats.

    However, IMHO the Democrat side has been more aggressive with anti-expat legislation and policies than the Republican side.

    In any case, I think our focus should be on reaching out to journalists rather than politicians and academics (unless already empathetic to expats).

  12. I don’t have a lot of confidence in either party being champions of anyone who can potentially bring revenue into a country that’s as cash strapped and desperate as the US is. They’ll pull in the draw bridges and protect those on their turf first. However we could not have a better class of people under attack right now, wealthy expats who have renounced in the last 10 years with pockets deep enough to maybe challenge this insanity.

Comments are closed.