Alan Grayson's offshore investment scheme

[cali]

Forget his calling a reporter a name, it's WHY he called him a name:

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the outspoken, populist Democrat who thunders against Wall Street fat cats,and used to to joke about Mitt Romney's low tax bill, incorporated a couple hedge funds in the Cayman Islands so investors could avoid taxes.

Grayson Fund Ltd. and Grayson Master Fund were incorporated in 2011 in the Cayman Islands, a well known tax Haven that Romney used as well, records show.. That was the same year he wrote in the Huffington Post that the IRS should audit every Fortune 500 company because so many appear to be "evading taxes through transfer pricing and offshore tax havens."

In a phone interview Wednesday, Grayson said the funds were incorporated in Grand Cayman at the advice of an attorney he declined to name. It was a vehicle for foreign investors to invest in his funds while limiting their tax liabilities, he said, but no money had been invested in them yet.

<snip>

Grayson's financial disclosure statements indicate he has between $5-million and $25-million invested in the Grayson fund, and he lists no income from it.

Asked whether it was appropriate for a member of congress and potential U.S. Senator to set up an investment fund with an eye toward soliciting foreign investments in the future, Grayson scoffed.

<snip>

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/potty-mouthed-alan-grayson-and-his-offshore-investments/2229497

I don't think this is a bullshit story and I don't think there's a defense for it. It smells of rank hypocrisy.

[djean111]

1. And it is too bad, because I will not vote for Patrick Murphy for Senator.

I won't vote for Republicans or Third Way politicians. In this case, I would just write in Bernie Sanders.

[brooklynite]

32. So, you wouldn't vote for Elizabeth Warren? Good to know.

[djean111]

63. Oh, I consider Elizabeth Warren a Democrat. To conflate Warren with Murphy is to miss my point

entirely. Which is, in its way, perfectly illustrative of my point.

[brooklynite]

70. You can understand my confusion...

Elizabeth Warren is apparently a REAL Democrat and Patrick Murphy is not; and you've offered no basis for either judgement.

[djean111]

71. The issues they espouse. My vote is my vote, my reasons are my own.

I am merely stating how I feel, not telling anyone else what to do. I have posted information on why I feel the way I do about Murphy in other threads. With links'n'stuff. I am confused as to why you even brought Warren up. She is not running for President, so no vote needed there, and I do not live in her state, so no vote needed there. If you are conflating her with Murphy because they both switched parties - I don't see Warren joining a group whose purpose is to triangulate with the GOP.

[marym625]

2. I don't blame anyone for trying to get rich

But this is much more than that

Sucks. I wish I didn't know this

[sabrina 1]

34. I wonder why the media hasn't badgered OTHER Dems who have offshore accounts?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz eg. Let's get it all out in the open, because it seems like you CAN do certain things so long as you don't rock the Corporate boat, as Grayson has.

Kerry is another Dem who purportedly has or had offshore accounts.

And I am certain we will find out that most Republicans have them.

Is it illegal? I don't think it is. But I think it should be.

[marym625]

38. That's interesting

You think it should be? May I ask why?

I am positive you are right. Just like Larry Summers, Hillary's main adviser, told Elizabeth Warren,

Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/09/05/i-had-been-warned/

[sabrina 1]

40. And Grayson broke that rule. While Wasserman Schultz and Kerry eg, who apparently also have offshore

accounts, have not, to my knowledge gone after Wall St Corporations who get tax breaks to create jobs (none of those mentioned fit that category including Grayson) but take their business overseas creating few if any US jobs, then put what is now said to be trillions made due to those tax breaks in overseas accounts, Grayson has gone after them, so that is why he alone is being singled out, imo.

Which is why HE and not anyone else, is being targeted imo.

Should it be illegal? If not, then why is this a big deal? But for those Corporations whose profits come due to the tax breaks they receive (two trillion over the ten years since Bush gave them those breaks) THEN place their profits in overseas accounts, I don't now, should they be required to pay SOMETHING BACK to the taxpayers who gave them those breaks at great cost to them?

Fines maybe, tax audits?

Grayson doesn't fall into that category, nor does Wasserman or Kerry or any other private individuals since to my knowledge they did not get any tax breaks to create jobs.

[marym625]

44. on one part I agree completely. that was the reason I replied with the quote

Obviously Grayson has been a bad boy and must be punished by the oligarchs

But you said you didn't think it should be illegal to hide money, so to speak, in offshore accounts. I don't think it's right for anyone. Especially for politicians that we have entrusted with our government

Maybe I am too tired to follow what you are saying.

[sabrina 1]

46. No, I probably wasn't very clear, tired also, long day lol! Schultz'd offshore account was

perfectly legal and relatively small, and involved a 401k account probably invested for her. Iow, millions of Americans have offshore accounts. As we are told, 'it's a Global World now' so people can and do invest their money overseas.

So to go after Grayson for doing so, seems very selective. Unless he is doing something illegal, which so far, no one has accused him of doing.

Should it be illegal? If it is to avoid taxes I believe it should be. And I think that is what Grayson was going after Big Corps who had received tax breaks already, for. They were avoiding taxes.

If it is to invest in some country where there is a chance to make some money, to me, that is very different from 'hiding' money, which Schultz eg, did not do.

Nor to my knowledge so far, has Grayson.

Investment and tax evasion are two different things.

It seems that there is an effort to accuse Grayson of tax evasion, or to give that impression. That is what I object to and I believe it is because, as you said, he 'was a bad boy' and didn't play by the rules.

[marym625]

47. absolutely everyone doing it should be called out

But I don't care if it is to make money, escape taxes or both. You can't do the first without the second. And you need money to do it. No person living paycheck to paycheck has this kind of opportunity. Our taxes are paid and we have no choice

Fuck the escaping taxes because you have money

[sabrina 1]

48. Well, as they say, 'it's a Global World' now. If you have ten thousand that you can invest

overseas and make some interest on that, which no one can do here anymore, apparently it's legal so long as you pay any taxes that might be due on the profits.

The neo-liberals made it impossible for Americans to make any interest on their savings in this country.

Whether that should be legal or not, is another matter. But as it stands NOW it is legal.

So iow, what they are trying to do is to give the impression that what Grayson is doing is the same thing those Corporations who were beneficiaries of the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy are doing, HIDING their money to avoid taxes.

There is absolutely nothing to compare what he went after them for, to what he and millions of other Americans are doing.

Your point that it should all be illegal, maybe it should be. I have no idea how all this came about to be honest.

I do know that there are a million ways for the rich to get richer, but for the working class, they cannot even make any interest on their savings in this country.

The whole thing is so messed up I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

[marym625]

49. "The whole thing is so messed up I'm not sure it can ever be fixed."

That.

Yes, they are crucifying Grayson because he doesn't play ball. He was part of the 3 act play started yesterday, act 2 today. So he is being punished. Absolutely no doubt.

The whole fucking thing stinks to high heaven

[sabrina 1]

50. Same thing happened to him a few years ago when he was up for reelection. He went after

his Republican opponent who was a vile human being. On DU, wow, the horror, 'we can't condone this' smelling salts were passed around, the very notion of telling a vile Republican the truth about what he was was just too much for some 'dems' here.

As Grayson said 'they are spending ten million dollars to get me out of Congress'. Frankly reading some of the stuff I read here, I wondered why they wasted their money, some here were doing that job for FREE, I assume.

So he lost. And we lost that seat. And that Republican won, and it turned out Grayson was right about him. The voters agreed and when Grayson ran again, he won.

Now it seems they are determined to give that seat BACKK to Republicans.

Here's my position on all of this. I don't expect politicians to be saints anymore (I admit, I did at one time not so long ago). I look now only at HOW THEY VOTE ON ISSUES.

If Bernie wins the WH, he is going to NEED people like Grayson in Congress. But here we have DUers, some who WANT Bernie to win, trying LOSE someone who WILL vote with Bernie 99% of the time.

I'm at the point where I don't want to know ANYTHING about politicians other than 'THEIR VOTING RECORD'

Are we on the Left just naturally self destructive or what? It sure seems that way.

[marym625]

51. Sorry love

I have to turn in. I will read this in the morning

[karynnj]

75. I was one disgusted by his ad

The stupid thing k is that the ad would have been fair and strong if he did not use the clip of his opponent taking part of a sentence when the full sentence showed it was completely out of context.

That was slimy and something I had attacked Republicans for. More importantly, it destroyed his chances when it came out that he did that. I have seen you blame people here who were disgusted for him losing which is pretty silly as we had no vote.

[karynnj]

74. would you defend these accounts if they were Clinton's?

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Somehow I doubt it. Instead for this rather slimy man, you are willing to spread false charges against people like John Kerry.

Neither he or Teresa had off shore accounts. He released very detailed information when he ran for president, as senator, and before being confirmed. Both of them are beneficiaries of family trusts that are not off shore.

As a member of the Finance committee, Kerry and Baucus passed legislation as an amendment to a jobs bill in 2010 to help the US get transparency on money leaving the country. A main reason was to make it harder to keep money offshore to avoid taxes.

In a committee meeting on July 24, 2008, Kerry and Jack Blum spoke about how this problem was one that needed to be dealt with internationally because it allowed tax fraud in many countries and allowed money flows for terrorism and international crime. (Here is Blum's statement - http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/072408jbtest.pdf Jack Blum worked for Kerry when he worked on the Contra drug dealing and BCCI. Kerry's questioning of Blum here was fascinating and very anti off shoring money. ) Here is a link to the hearing - http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=dc916802-f9b8-0603-029f-eb2748e4c960

[sheshe2]

61. Yet, were they fundraising on DU?

He was.

[karynnj]

72. kerry did not have off shore accounts

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Neither he or Teresa had off shore accounts. He released very detailed information when he ran for president, as senator, and before being confirmed. Both of them are beneficiaries of family trusts that are not off shore.

As a member of the Finance committee, Kerry and Baucus passed legislation as an amendment to a jobs bill in 2010 to help the US get transparency on money leaving the country. A main reason was to make it harder to keep money offshore to avoid taxes.

In a committee meeting on July 24, 2008, Kerry and Jack Blum spoke about how this problem was one that needed to be dealt with internationally because it allowed tax fraud in many countries and allowed money flows for terrorism and international crime. (Here is Blum's statement - http://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/072408jbtest.pdf Jack Blum worked for Kerry when he worked on the Contra drug dealing and BCCI. Kerry's questioning of Blum here was fascinating and very anti off shoring money. ) Here is a link to the hearing - http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=dc916802-f9b8-0603-029f-eb2748e4c960

While people here have pushed Kerry's name probably due to his wealth, I have never seen a well sourced article claim that.

It is disgusting that you are willing to smear a Democrat who actually did work against this to defend Grayson, who actually has done this because you like him.

[NCTraveler]

73. "you don't rock the Corporate boat, as Grayson has. "

He is not rocking the corporate boat. He is one of the captains.

[Hoyt]

3. He's got a lot of skeletons. I did enjoy him, even sent a few dollars, when he was bashing

george war bush and Romney.

[upaloopa]

4. How do you expect Dems to win elections

if they can't match cash spent against them?
I think the right has hit on a smart tactic. Play to our principles and we refuse to vote because our candidate isn't pure enough.

[cali]

5. I'd like to think you're kidding. this has nothing to do with

raising money for an election. Nothing.

[sabrina 1]

36. Will you be writing OPs about the other Dems who have offshore accounts also?

I hope so, because if this is illegal then all those who are doing it, should go.

If not, then singling out one Dem who is known for his outspoken attacks on Corporations who receive TAX EXEMPTIONS for 'creatng jobs' and are hiding trillions of dollars offshore, seems to me to be suspect.

I look forward to seeing every member of Congress with an offshore account exposed by you.

[cali]

54. sure. tell me who else has set up

Hedge funds for investors iun the Caymans. Never said it was illegal, and it's his hypocrisy that I find so galling. This reminds me of when I criticized Edwards back in 2007 and people got furious at me for that

[sabrina 1]

58. There is no hypocrisy UNLESS he is doing it to avoid taxes. IS he hiding money to avoid taxes?

Because that is what he went after those Corps who benefited from Bush's Tax Breaks for the Wealthy so they would create jobs. Instead they profited from overseas cheap labor, created little to no jobs here, THEN HID THEIR MONEY in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes.

What Grayson is doing is so far from that unless you have info that he received some of those tax breaks to create jobs and is hiding his profits to avoid taxes.

Otherwise he is doing what MILLIONS of other Americans are doing investing in other countries where they can make some money and pay the taxes due, if any.

Now YOU epxlain to me what exactly he is doing that conflicts with his position on Corporations who took the tax breaks to create jobs here, two trillion dollars worth of tax breaks over ten years, then took their business over seas and used slave labor to maximize their profits, created little to no jobs here, and are now HIDING their profits offshore to avoid any taxes?

Is THAT what Grayson is doing, or is he doing what millions of other Americans are doing, legally investing in other countries and abiding by US laws, paying taxes where appropriate?

Because if he is doing what those Corps are doing? I'm with you 100%.

Otherwise, he is doing something entirely different and there is absolutely NO hypocrisy involved.

[cali]

62. he set up two hedge funds in the Cayman's and one is intended

for investors to limit their tax liability. That's sleazy. Why set them up at all? And no, not all wealthy people avail themselves of the Caymans or Jersey.

That he hasn't gotten those investments yet is immaterial. He set up the Hedge Fund to help wealthy people limit their tax liabilities.

[cali]

65. YOU go out and do that research and I'll pile on. Sorry, but I devote most of

my research time to the TPP/TPA.

Looking forward to your exposing those engaging in these practices- particularly those as hypocritical as Grayson.

[kentuck]

6. Rank hypocrisy?

I had read that Alan Grayson was a very wealthy member of Congress but I had not read how he made his money or how he plans on making money in the future? I think his supporters deserve transparency, just as it would with any other Congressman.

[cali]

7. what would you call it? He blasted Romney for this

and he sets up a hedge fund in the Caymen Islands for investors (and himself) to limit their tax liabilities.

yes, I call that hypocrisy writ large.

[kentuck]

13. Notwithstanding the ?

I tend to agree with you.

[cali]

14. ah,I get it now

What the he'll is it with this politician worship stuff?

[kentuck]

15. I don't know.

I want to see it debated. Every fine line. Everything. I want it to be made public.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. At least he could invest at home in America

[sabrina 1]

37. He made his money as a very successful attorney who went after Defense Contractors

who, during the Iraq War received Govt contracts and did not do the jobs they were supposed to do. He was very successful in his endeavors.

As far as hypocrisy, I find this OP and the targeting of Grayson while ignoring other members of Congress with offshore accounts, to be a bit hypocritical. But then those others haven't been so outspoken about Corps who receive tax breaks to supposedly create jobs but then go overseas and hire cheap labor, THEN hide their now trillions of profits in offshore accounts.

Did Grayson receive any tax breaks to create jobs or take any bailouts after crashing the economy BEFORE he decided to hide his money offshore?

Big difference in what he has criticized and as an individual, using offshore accounts for his own personal reasons.

Frankly I think it should all be illegal, but it isn't, which is why this is a common practice among wealthy people.

[cali]

55. name them.

[karynnj]

76. By limiting to before, are you admitting to AFTER he put his money in the Caymen Islands?

Not to mention, I doubt you would say - if this were Bill Clinton - that he spent almost all his adult life in government service rather than using his connections and talents to make millions BEFORE he left the White House.

I know you are not interested in my opinion, but I don't think Grayson is worthy of all the support you have given him. I know that you want a Senator from FL, who would vote as Grayson does, but do you really think he can win statewide with the baggage he has? Given that there might - if we are lucky - be a possibility that control of the Senate rests on who gets this seat, I think that - no matter how conservative or in Grayson's case how sleazy - we should go with the strongest Democrat.

[sabrina 1]

84. I asked a question because people are reacting to a question that made no distinction

between what Corporations who received tax breaks from the Bush 'tax breaks for the wealthy' with the promise that they would create jobs in the US a promise they did not keep, costing the tax payers two trillion dollars, and THEN HIDING THEIR PROFITS made off the broken promise funded by the tax payers in order to dodge paying the legitimate taxes they owe the American people.

Then there are the millions of Americans who are legally, afaik, investing in foreign countries where they have an opportunity to make some money legally, and pay whatever taxes may be required.

So what is that Grayson did that is different from millions of other Americans, including members of Congress, or is the sneaky question asked by that reporter intended to lead us to believe, (which apparently worked just looking at DU today) that he is doing what those crooked corporations are doing, dodging taxes AFTER having received huge tax breaks to create jobs that were not created?

Jumping to conclusions without having any knowledge of what is being alleged, especially when a Democrat is involved, is not the way to go, imo. Until and unless he actually is doing something as nefarious as what that sly question by that 'journalist' sneakily implied.

And yes, I do want a Democrat with a voting record like Grayson's in Congress and/or the Senate. The baggage you speak of is all personal smears coming from and paid for by Big Corporate entities.

It worked in his second campaign, again with the help of some DUers and the Corporations who control our government now, got what they wanted, the very Republican Grayson had called out, truthfully it appears, but not as 'delicately' as our leftie sensibilities seem to require.

And we lost a seat. As for a 'strong Democrat', the ONLY kind of Dem who is likely to be put up against him, will be Corporate Dem in which case many who are sick to death of this game, will not be supporting anymore. See the mid terms if you doubt that. Voters will elect Progressives and did and will vote on Progressive issues, and did, but they will no longer support, and didn't, anymore Corporate dems. So if they want support for an opponent to Grayson, it better be one with as good a voting record as his.

[karynnj]

86. Do you have money in a fund, hedge fund or not, in the Cayman Islands? I know I don't

I agree that there likely are others in Congress doing the same thing - and I would have no problem if they, like Grayson, were asked about it.

As to Grayson's second campaign -- he lost it because of the campaign he ran. He most certainly did not lose it because of ANYTHING on DU. No one on DU, if they happened to live in his district, would have voted for a very conservative Republican. I suspect that some - if they were offended -- were in the position I would have been had Lautenberg not replaced Torrecelli - I already knew I would vote for the seat to remain Democratic. I would have voted and I would have voted for a very sleazy guy. The alternative, not quite as conservative as Webster, was untenable.

DU is partisan - happily so. The impact that COULD be had from anything here is most likely only in the primaries.

The polls showed him cratering after it came out that he clipped a sentence to mean almost the opposite of what was heard. It had that the affect of taking away a very valid issue - Webster was very anti feminist. This is because that sentence heard in full made his position sound less extreme than it really was -- and the action of clipping the sentence completely destroyed Grayson's credibility on what really should have been among his strongest issues.

It amazes me that you blame others for his error -- when you are incredibly quick to hold the President (or many others) feet to the fire when they do something you disagree with.

[sabrina 1]

87. DU is far from partisan when it comes to very Progressive Dems, to the point where we don't

need the far right to do the dirty work of smearing them, as we see here. I'm for letting the enemy smear Democrats especially those who have stood up for the issues we claim to care so much about.

Millions of dollars were spent by Right Wing special interest groups to go after Grayson. It's interesting to note that in that campaign, Grayson made many speeches, said some great things that clearly showed where HE was coming from. But none of that was the focus here on DU by some of the same people now jumping on again 'one' encounter with a questionable 'journalist'.

That is what smear campaigns are for. We saw how they work when HB Gary's bid for a contract to smear liberal journalists and even bloggers was exposed by Anonymous.

They stalk the target of the campaign, they wait to find just ONE thing that can be misinterpreted, manipulated and used to discredit the target. It was amazing to see it in progress, seemed so childish, 'where does his wife work', 'what schools do his kids go to' etc etc.

I'm sure they loved those threads back then on DU. I'm sure they love this one.

I'm certainly not going to help them.

Do I have an account in the Cayman Islands? No, I do not. But if you a pension fund, or an IRA or whatever, it very well could have been invested in an offshore account.

That is what happened to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When Fox in defense of Romney tried to paint a few Dems with the same brush.

And naturally the smear took hold, until a decent journalist decided to look into it. She did have money about $15,000 or so that had been invested offshore, it was an IRA or pension fund of some sort, all perfectly legal and nowhere close to what Romney was doing.

As I said, millions of Americans do have money in offshore accounts, and when I worked for one of the top Dem fundraisers at their private home where they had fund raising dinners etc, I would find pamphlets for the Cayman Islands, lying around after they left. At the time I thought they were planning vacations.

Seem most people with money are looking for opportunities abroad. So the singling out of Grayson proves to me that his attacks on crooked Corps made him a target again.

[karynnj]

88. You control the investment of an IRA

and if it is out of the Cayman Islands, you need to do some due diligence - especially if you are a public official. This might even mean getting out of something like that - even if you lose money doing so.

The reason that Cayman Islands is singled out is that it is a place that many many financial firms that evade taxes are located -- and they are incorporated there (thousands in just one building - each having a post office box like space - is for tax evasion. Did you bother to either read Jack Blum's testimony of listen to the 2008 hearing on tax evasion and the Cayman Islands? It means something when you get your own hearing. I watched it in 2008 - but remember enough to link to it. (I found Blum's testimony in case you didn't want to watch a hearing.

[sabrina 1]

103. Perhaps people should do something about where their pension are invested, but the fact is

most people do not, and apparently, that was the problem for the Dems singled out by Fox who had offshore accounts.

As in this case, only it was FOX doing it then, no distinction was made regarding WHY those offshore accounts existed between what is clearly a tax-evading scheme and a legal investment (whether it should be or not isn't the question those accounts WERE legal and not tax-evasion attempts). So naturally all of them were smeared and called hypocrites for going after Romney.

Same thing here, only when it comes to liberal dems I've noticed, the right gets help from some on the left.

Unless this is illegal it is as relevant as the other Dems with offshore 'exposed' by the Right.

Having said all that, imo, all these loopholes should be closed. But that would be up to Congress, including Dems who don't seem very anxious to do so.

[karynnj]

106. That is why I spoke of IRAs, which are under your control

For those lucky enough to have a traditional pension, they do not control the investment. (As to IRAs, it makes no sense to avoid "taxes" on investments in them. There is no tax, until you take a withdrawal and at that point - no matter how it was invested - it is taxed at ordinary income rates.)

If the Democrats, pointed out by Fox, had corporate or government based pensions that were invested in funds out of the Cayman Islands - which sounds rather strange - it is not their fault. Bringing this up does not help Grayson.

That is NOT what happened in Grayson's case - he created funds that were run out of the Cayman Islands. Here, he is more like Romney than like someone who was found to have innocently had investments via a pension.

It amazes me that you are willing to bring in the names of other Democrats, who did not do what Grayson did --- yet are whining that it is a smear to note that Grayson has been reported to do this. The onus is on Grayson to prove that he reported every cent of income from any Cayman fund for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Just like that was the only way Romney could have proved otherwise.

[karynnj]

106. That is why I spoke of IRAs, which are under your control

For those lucky enough to have a traditional pension, they do not control the investment. (As to IRAs, it makes no sense to avoid "taxes" on investments in them. There is no tax, until you take a withdrawal and at that point - no matter how it was invested - it is taxed at ordinary income rates.)

If the Democrats, pointed out by Fox, had corporate or government based pensions that were invested in funds out of the Cayman Islands - which sounds rather strange - it is not their fault. Bringing this up does not help Grayson.

That is NOT what happened in Grayson's case - he created funds that were run out of the Cayman Islands. Here, he is more like Romney than like someone who was found to have innocently had investments via a pension.

It amazes me that you are willing to bring in the names of other Democrats, who did not do what Grayson did --- yet are whining that it is a smear to note that Grayson has been reported to do this. The onus is on Grayson to prove that he reported every cent of income from any Cayman fund for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Just like that was the only way Romney could have proved otherwise.

[NaturalHigh]

8. Not surprising. I never liked Grayson.

He's wealthy, invests in offshore tax havens, and then has the nerve to come here begging for money.

[Andy823]

9. I am with you

For the same reasons, especially the donation thing here on DU. He isn't even really the one posting, it's just some aide that works for him, yet some here really think he posts here. Every post using his name has links to donate to him no matter what the subject may be.

[NaturalHigh]

10. Yeah, if we would just bust our asses and send him enough money...

he could take on those nasty rich people.

[cali]

11. this Grayson adoration just demonstrates to me that the cult of personality

crap isn't limited to those in President Obama's or HRC's camp(s)

[OilemFirchen]

42. Slow on the uptake, huh?

I remember the Dennis camp. It still exists, BTW, though it's been drowned out by the Elizabeth and Bernie camps.

Don't get out much?

[cali]

56. I remember the Edwards adulation and

Of course there are other examples

[tammywammy]

79. This is similar to Edwards

Remember how some of Edwards' supporters poo pooed any discussion of his work at a hedge fund to "learn about poverty"?

There seems to be a lot of twisting to say Grayson's actions are okay. :/

[sheshe2]

52. I got a hide here, Andy...

for calling out his fundraising. Every link was for money.

Now DU wakes up. Holy shit he was adored here!!!! Adored!

[cali]

57. not by me

I don't do political adulation. Ever

[sheshe2]

59. Glad to hear....

Others here adored him and his money links.

Got that hide for questioning his money links.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. +1. He's a showboater & if my hunch is correct (it usually is), he's a major league bs'er as well.

[cali]

12. kick. yeah, I'm a "purist" about this kind of shit.

and I think this is indefensible. In a way, he's worse than Romney because he had the nerve to call Romney out on this and he's doing the same thing. So what that he doesn't have investors yet; there is only one reason to set up a hedge Fund (or 2) in the Cayman Islands

[Beearewhyain]

16. Thanks for pointing this out

As a low count poster I have been hesitant to say anything critical about Grayson due to inevitably being call a troll but I have had serious reservations about this man. When he first came to prominence I was on the bandwagon but as time has gone on it has become apparent (to me at least) that he has made a calculated effort to rope in a constituency, and then milk them for every donation he can.

There are some that view any criticism of him as treachery and anti progressive; a charge that I reject. I can't remember the poster but someone on here put it best when they said (paraphrase) "Grayson is a fragile and delicate Faberge Egg that when you blow on it a note falls out asking for money"

[cali]

18. I'm pretty stunned by the denial and

hypocrisy I'm seeing. That makes more determined to speak out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Random points...

-I was never a Grayson acolyte or detractor.
-Deifying politicians is silly
-He's not the first one percenter to try to reduce his tax exposure.

[cali]

20. it's more than that

He's doing what du hammered Romney for doing and what he hammered Romney for doing and what he constantly railing about. And he's set up a hedge fund to attract i investors to do the same.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I am not disagreeing with you...

I never put him on a pedestal...I am a Democrat because I agree with them on the issues but I would have to be naive or a hypocrite to say I am a Democrat because they have a monopoly on consistency or virtue.

[lovemydog]

22. The substantive question, to me, is Grayson's voting record.

I don't deify him or anything like that. But I'd vote for someone who tries to change the laws and close the loopholes over anyone who doesn't do a thing to close them.

[whathehell]

53. Yes, I agree -- It's the It's the voting record that counts.

So he's not a saint. I never expect that of politiians.

[Nye Bevan]

23. I've never liked him since the disgraceful "Taliban Dan" attack.

And yes, he posts on DU sometimes, but only to ask for money.

[NuclearDem]

28. God, that was utterly disgusting.

It's not like there wasn't enough to go after Webster with without resorting to deliberately taking quotes out of context.

[seabeyond]

25. he is not a good guy. nt

[cali]

27. on this we agree. he's conning people like John Edwards did

[840high]

29. ...^ that

[Andy823]

26. K&R nt

[diabeticman]

30. The whole married annulling thing just disturb me enough to kind of turn me away from him.

[RobertEarl]

31. Grayson is rich

And he is following the law.

He asks for donations from people like us because otherwise he'd have to ask rich people for money.

He then casts votes that favor us and some of you get your knickers in a twist because he doesn't do every gawd damn thing just they way you think it should be done?

No wonder the dem party is so fucked up. No wonder at all.....

[brooklynite]

33. Sorry to disappoint you...but he DOES ask rich people for money...just not here

I met him at a swank NYC Law Firm some years back when he was running for Congress; he didn't reject my check...

[hfojvt]

105. or otherwise

he'd have to spend his own money, which he presumably does as well.

You don't think it is odd for somebody who is worth $30 million and has a $170,000 salary to ask for donations from people who are worth much less and are paid much less?

Plus, like any incumbent, he has the taxpayers picking up a big chunk of campaign expenses - like travel and mailing and newspaper coverage (okay he probably gets a lot of that for free, but not at taxpayer expense).

[morningfog]

35. I always hate when politicians who have similar positions as I get caught up in bad choices.

This certainly looks like one of those cases. Too bad.

[bigwillq]

39. The more I hear about Grayson, the more I dislike him.

Look, I like some of his ideas and stances, and I appreciate him fighting the good fight, but he really comes off as a sleaze ball to me. I just don't really care for him.

[joshcryer]

41. This is similar to rich people not paying taxes.

But saying that they want to pay them.

Why would they not take advantage of all the loopholes that they have available?

Obviously in, say, Warren Buffet's case, where he says his secretary has a higher tax rate than him, he's completely up front about the process. Grayson should do the same, say he's taking advantage of a loophole he does not want to exist. It's not that controversial.

[SidDithers]

43. DU rec...nt

Sid

[RobertEarl]

45. Sid reccing a Dem bashing thread?

Wow. I thought you didn't like threads that bashed Democrats?

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. "Bashing"? So you do recognize "bashing" afterall? I thought "constructive criticism" was....

all the rage with your click. Is Grayson off limits? Perhaps someone should make a list of Dems we can't discuss?

[djean111]

67. Grayson is a liberal/Progressive. I believe bashing liberals is okay to some DUers.

[karynnj]

81. Bashing and reporting things that are true are two different things

DU has NEVER hesitated to question any powerful Democrat - not Obama, not either Clinton, not Kerry, not Dean .....etc. All of them may at some point do things that some posters disagree with.

In fact, all of these people agree on the majority of issues with progressives/liberals. On a message board, issues where all of us are pretty much in agreement on are discussed ONLY on the edges where there are alternative views. For instances, every person listed favored action to deal with the problem of a significant number of Americans not being able to get health care. Where they all agreed is that the government should help and health care should be a right. In reality, had ANY of these people become President with the Congress divided as it was in 2009, we likely would have gotten nearly the same program. In fact, had Bernie become President, that would likely have been the same outcome. Anyone who had the time to watch the Congressional hearings saw that this was about as far as they could go and get 60 votes. Here, the discussion was not whether there should be a bill, but that it should be single payer, have a public option etc.

On personal issues, they can be important if they are bad enough that they alone can make an election impossible to win. (This is why the public mess that was Grayson's family is not irrelevant. I suspect that many - non political Floridians could reject him on this alone.)

The Cayman Islands accounts, especially as this seems recent, are important at a time when the key issue he and other progressives run on is income inequality. One easy way to accelerate income inequality is to provide means for the rich not to pay there taxes. This leaves all levels of government with less money (some of which is used for transfer payments) and leaves the wealthy with more.

As to some people arguing that others do it too, makes me remember the many times my father asked me if "two wrongs make a right". People are on really shaky ground when their defense is "all the other kids are doing it."

Ultimately, the ONLY people who have a real say on this will be the Florida Democrats who vote in the primary. They have the right to consider (or not consider) anything they want.

[RobertEarl]

89. He probably did it to keep his ex-wife from ripping him off

The last time DU cons were bashing Grayson was when he was going thru a divorce with his illegal wife.

Grayson was smart to move his money somewhere his ex-wife couldn't touch it. And we have people bashing him because he's smart and plays by the rules?

I think his opposition - Kochs - makes some people get their knickers in a twist. Rather weird, don't yall think?

[karynnj]

91. I would not go there - that whole sorry story makes things worse

Not to mention, that is the woman he lived with for something like 2 decades and had 5 kids with. Not to mention, that is not playing by the rules.

[RobertEarl]

92. It happens

Denial and refusing to look at it - the divorce - is not wise.

She tried to screw him and last I heard he won and saved his fortune from being stolen. Smart man.

[karynnj]

93. Politically it may have hurt him more than a quiet, split the money "divorce" would have done

While just a guess, the story - which does not even need to be sensationalized - may cost him votes among less ideological people - especially women - who might think he is a jerk. She may have the last laugh -- if she is vindictive and wants him to lose.

(Not to mention - there is a nightmare scenario. She can do a scripted by others emotional ad to play the last weekend of the general election campaign. Note this was not just a bitter divorce, it was about as bad as it gets.)

[RobertEarl]

94. What is important

He saved himself from being ripped off.

He is a champion for the little people and they respect that. He will be fine and he'll take care of his responsibilities as he always has.

As for what the bashing of this thread has done is just expose those who go after Liberals and wish ill upon them personally. Rather distasteful exposition... we should be better. This politics of personal destruction so many are want to do is beneath us, one would think.

[karynnj]

95. He "saved" himself from being ripped off --- by the woman he lived with for 2 decades

and his 5 children. Not to mention these accounts were started in 2011 -- which I think is before his relationship went south. Face it, he likely decided that he did not want to pay the taxes that would accrue if he invested in the US.

All the "little people" respect him?? First of all, "little people??? Second there will likely be people at various income levels who are not impressed by these actions.

No one is attacking him because he is liberal or because he is progressive. I am criticizing him for three specific sleazy things -- 1) using an opponent's voice to quote part of a sentence out of context. THAT is what the Republicans do all the time - and I don't like it. 2) His inability to privately reach a settlement with his wife and 3) this Cayman account.

[RobertEarl]

96. We know you personally don't like him

He saved himself being ripped off of lots of money. He followed the rules or you can bet the Kochs would have tried to crucify him. He did not make up the rules. He won the divorce case; he's smart and quite capable, and is a very good representative in the House - that is why the Kochs hate him.

[karynnj]

97. I personally don't know him -- and think the three actions are indefensible.

PS No one "wins" a divorce case.

[RobertEarl]

98. No defense needed for Grayson

Except from the personal destruction rants.

I've known a few husbands taken to the cleaners in divorces. They would not agree with the idea there are no winners in divorces.

[karynnj]

99. Statistics show that after a divorce, it is far more likely the wife whose

economic status changes for the worse. Here, over a year of fighting in public was likely not pleasant for the children.

[RobertEarl]

100. Well, thing is

Grayson's divorce is really none of our business. To keep harping on it is just playing personal politics destruction games. Which is fuggly.

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. +1. Awesome post.

[dembotoz]

64. do we expect rich folks not to use rich folk ways to save money?

He points out advantages he gets that us lowly serfs do not

I do not expect him to live like a lowly serf
He is rich

[djean111]

66. He is being made an example of because Wasserman Schulz & Co. want Patrick Murphy to run for

Rubio's seat. Murphy just switched parties in 2010, and IMO he is no more of a Democrat than Rubio is. He was just less crazy than Cornel West, but still republican enough to not offend the GOP voters.

Wasserman Schulz has supported a Republican because of friendship, and Wasserman Schulz is, again IMO, a Third Way Blue Dog. The Florida Dem Party wants to decertify their Progressive Caucus because the Progressives want Grayson over Murphy.
So Grayson will be thrown under the bus. I would be astonished if Murphy and his very rich family don't have lots of funds outside the US, really. In any event, I will not vote for Murphy, if it comes to that. He is not really a Democrat, or closer to say is a New Democrat, which to me is just a letter away from an "R".

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. So, Wasserman Schulz & Co somehow tricked Grayson into creating a Cayman Island tax dodge in 2011

knowing that he would run for the Senate in 2016? Is so, Frank Underwood has nothing on Wasserman Schultz.

[djean111]

69. Way to twist my words. I said nothing of the kind. What I am saying is that Debbie will dig into

Grayson's life and expose anything she thinks will get support away from him and over to Murphy. Like I said, I would be surprised if Murphy, and/or his wealthy family (that bankrolls him) don't have sheltered accounts, too. I would be surprised if the list questions for Grayson were not supplied by the Floridian "Dems". But hey, it is just my one little vote. Um, and my son's vote, and my grandson's vote, and probably my sister's vote. Still - drop in the bucket.

[geek tragedy]

78. Why do you think reporters wouldn't dig into Grayson's finances of their own volition? that's their

job, after all n

[Freddie Stubbs]

104. Patrick Murphy has a competent enough campaign to

bring up issues which will be of interest to voters in the Democratic primary.

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. When one of DU's "sacred cows" gets exposed wearing a cracked halo, there's a flood of whacky....

justifications. The exposure then becomes the fault of Obama, Wasserman Schulz, the DNC, Turd Way, blah...blah..blah. Unfortunately, I think Grayson may have just "Weiner'd" himself. We heard these same rationalizations when Weiner got exposed (no pun intended). His defenders are doing exactly what they've accused others of....deifying a politician.

[geek tragedy]

77. They kidnapped his money and took it to the Cayman Islands?

They implanted a brain chip that caused him to go on an unhinged, obscene rant against a reporter for asking perfectly legitimate questions?

[djean111]

80. I know it is a new and novel idea - a political party turning on one of its own in order to

push someone more amenable to the party's new aims. I am merely putting this into a perspective with the Florida Democratic Party threatening to de-certify the Progressive Caucus because the Progressives had the astounding gall to support Grayson instead of Murphy (who is being repackaged and polished up to be sold as a liberal).
I doubt Grayson is the only Florida Democrat, or politician, to have money in the Caymans. Yes, I wish he could hold his temper. Because I will not vote for Murphy. No matter what Grayson does or says.

[geek tragedy]

82. Not going to criticize your extreme reluctance to vote for Murphy.

But, I don't see how this is the Florida Democratic party's fault. Grayson's an easy target for the media as it is--they needed no assistance or prompting to do this kind of investigation. And it is perfectly legit to ask him why it was wrong for Mitt Romney but okay for him.

On the other hand, I would NOT be surprised if Murphy's people fed this to the reporter. That sort of thing does happen in primaries, for example the John Edwards haircut story.

[2banon]

83. Extremely disappointed to read this. Saddened, very Saddened.

this is hard even for an old cynic like me..

[Capt. Obvious]

85. The best comment on his GoFundMe

Gofundme won't let me donate bootstraps.

[brooklynite]

90. Another reason I won't be supporting him in the Senate race...

About the only reason I've heard to support him is he speaks bluntly; he can continue to do that in the House and have just as little influence.