Apparently the author of this article doesn't realize that we are not a tribe of indians.

Why anyone thinks that being a successful businessman means you possess the skills needed to be a good President escapes me. Business may teach you to be a competent administrator, or show you have a knack for exploiting markets, but as Romney's recent foray to London shows, politics demands something very different: the ability to convince people you actually care about them, and that you have their interests at heart. At both of those tasks Romney is a complete failure.

I really cannot think of a thing that Willard has done that I respect him for. Why should this be any different?

The premise of this column is deeply flawed, in that it sees virtue in sharing one's wealth with the government, over and above what the law requires. How dry the well has become for attacking Mitt, because this is pathetic. I have never seen the Globe ever suggest that any wealthy democrat is less of a person because they only paid the taxes that they owed. Never. NEW PARAGRAPH: Mitt is doing the right thing by not releasing these returns, as it would giver the Obama media a treasure trove of data to find ways to attack Mitt. It would thus take the spotlight off Obama's sorry record, and put it on Mitt for dreamed up scandals fished out of his tax returns. Politically, it makes no sense. The media will attack him anyway, why give them any ammunition?

"Mitt is doing the right thing by not releasing these returns, as it would giver the Obama media a treasure trove of data to find ways to attack Mitt." / / / That logic is so contorted it's laughable. / / / If Mitt's tax returns contain information that would cause people to question his suitability for the Presidency, shouldn't we all know it? Or do you think potential Romney voters are too gullible to be trusted with the information that might conflict with the Eagle Scout imagine he has tried so hard and for so long to create? / / / Note: By definition, there's something he's hiding, even if it's innocuous, and voters don't like that.

Well this is the weirdest approach I've seen to Mitt in fact I don't see much point to it. Mitt's tax problem is a practical one. He pays less taxes by percentage than the average Joe. Just as I do. All perfectly legal. He probably has some years where he paid zero. I've come close but never pulled zero off. Still again all perfectly legal and I'm quite sure Mitt feels just as I do I only have to pay what the law requires and should be able to take whatever deductions and loopholes that are available. The problem with all of that is that it is just wrong. Wrong that Mitt pays a lower percentage than my kids do, wrong that I pay a lower percentage than my kids do.(NP) The practical political problem is that the average guy on the street knows in his gut that he's paying a greater percentage at 75K a year than Mitt is and he doesn't like it. The spin miesters can hoot and holler all they want, but most folks see a flawed system when it is in front of their noses. If Mitt tries to Nixon his way through this especially as the "silly" season progresses it will probably cost him more than he realizes.

In his recent column, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post identifies how important it is to Romney himself that he refuse to release his tax returns: "By and large, the tax filings tell you nothing you don't already know. But the refusal to release them is a different matter. In Romney's case, this is his one and only stand on principle, an odd example of political bravery. He has flipped on abortion, gun control and, of course, health-insurance reform, his signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts. But not on releasing his taxes. ... He hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We're suckers." [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-the-secret-in-mitt-romneys-tax-returns/2012/07/23/gJQAVwbI5W_story.html ]

Breathtakingly insipid, shallow and stupid. "Today it's possible for a man to accumulate more wealth than he can spend in a lifetime." Really? It was impossible for Henry Ford or Commodore Vanderbilt? Bill and Hillary Clinton reduced their taxes by taking a deduction for the charitable donation of used underwear. Did that disqualify Clinton from the Presidency? And if we are to measure candidates by the Potlach standard it might have been a good idea for Ms. Stockman to mention in passing that potlaches were banned by federal authorities because of the highly destructive results. Look, I get it that Democrats want to talk about anything at all except the economy and jobs but if this is the best that they can do, then get used to saying "President Romney".

you people are vultures, 3 million dollars in taxes and your still not happy, government needs to be shrunk. the money people earn belong to them, not the government.

"I really cannot think of a thing that Willard has done that I respect him for. Why should this be any different?" 1. Rescued 2002 Winter Olympics. 2. Balanced state budget in recession with no new taxes. 3. Finally got rid of Billy Bulger. 4. Finally got rid of Fat Matt Amorello. 6. Exemplary husband and father. 7. Staples. 8. Got rid of Jane Swift. 9. Donates over 12% of income to charity.

Not being a fan of organized religion, only giving to one's own religious organizations and 12.5% of millions is pathetic. What doe he do the the other 87.5% when maybe 5% or 10% is all that is needed to cover the basics including children's educations? As I said yesterday, the man is an embarrassment,

So Farah, where's your article on John Kerry's unfitness for his Senate post, since he evaded the sales/use taxes on his fabulous yacht? Opps, of course, he's a Democrat, my bad.

The system may work, but it lacks both subtlety and coherence.

The cover story in Bloomberg Business Week a few weeks ago provided a deep view of the Mormon Church's business operations and its overall policies. Yes, members tithe, but have more recently been sending all tithing to Salt Lake, where a central committee disburses funds. I was taken by the stat that the Mormon support for humanitarian charities was 0.7% and the article compared that to approx 30% for the Methodists. It also described how Mormon charitable volunteers get assigned to projects that are business-generators for the church. At Mass this week we had visitors from a missionary group we regularly give to, a group that works in Africa, South America and Philippines with desparately poor people - and turns 97% of donations into the budgets for food programs and building wells for clean water. I don't expect the Mormons to do the same - they have their own principles - but I wonder how someone so far removed from real problems would wield power in a society with huge social challenges.

Missing the point.

***************************---Matthew 6:3--- But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,---Matthew 6:5 ---"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.Matthew 6:16 "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.Matthew 23:5 "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long

Goodness! You're entirely right. All Americans should put their money in Swiss banks and overseas tax havens. It's as American as apple pie.

Very inspiring. Thank you!

Mitt Romney dismisses the world outside his church with the sneer of the tight-fisted rich. "I've got mine. Now you get yours".

A more interesting question is this: Should we consider Mitt's contributions to the Morman church charitable donations? What does the church do with its money? Does it spend it for the betterment of society or to ease the burden or the sick or the poor? Or does it spend it on 'empire building'?

Right, because no one's heard that story yet. Can't re-air every politician's dirty laundry in every article, you know.