Talk Elections

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?1343764012 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/harry-reid-romney-taxes_n_1724027.html?1343764012)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

...

"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying.

"He didn't pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain," said Reid. "But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look?

"You guys have said his wealth is $250 million," Reid went on. "Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

The highest ranked Democrat in Congress, Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower. So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney's taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate.

Tellingly, neither Reid nor his office would reveal who the investor was, making it impossible to verify if the accusation is true. And as his quote makes clear, he's uncertain if the information is accurate. The Romney campaign's press secretary, Andrea Saul, has previously denied rumors that Romney didn't pay "any taxes at all."

But there is limited political downside to the type of open speculation that Reid is making, so long as Romney refuses to budge on the issue of his tax returns. Increasingly, other Democrats are growing more assertive in their goading. In an appearance at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland argued that he could openly speculate as to whether Romney "is a tax avoider" or "cheat" because "his behavior invites such speculation."

I'm gonna need to see the investor on that one, Harry.

Well doesn't this just scream of honesty.

This is no time for the pot to be talking about the kettle...

Romney is kind of begging people to assume the worst about his taxes.

Because the worst that common people can imagine without trying is still better than the reality of virtually everybody in Romney's financial league.
I very much doubt that the statement is literally true - but I doubt even more that it is not fundamentally true.

Reid knows how to play the game.

Thus begins the game of "what's in Romey's Tax Returns?"

Hey I heard that for three years Romney was writing off millions in losses for a cock fighting business

see how easy it is.

Clearly the Romney campaign have calculated that whatever is in there is more damaging than making him look like he is hiding something combined with the speculation of the things he is hiding.

Probably a made up meeting, but a good way to ramp up the pressure.

It really is not possible for Mittens to have paid no taxes like that, unless, as is highly unlikely, he had large operating loss carry forwards, or failed to pay himself and used complex stock option arrangements where the strike price was at market value (also highly unlikely). Reid of course knows about as much about taxes as my long dead pet cat, so his yippings on this, and repeating of the hearsay of someone equally ignorant,  do not surprise me.

Well, in that case Reid will look really silly when Romney releases his tax returns, won't he?

Yes, hopefully, although it won't embarrass Reid. Nothing Reid says ever embarrasses him. He has no sense of shame.

Judging by Torie's reaction, Reid's statement is one of his most savvy moments.

Dude, I'm sure he knows as much as you about taxes, the point is his statement has nothing to do with taxes - it is beautiful politics.  Reid is great.  We need more smear-artists on our side.

Harry Reid is one of my favorite politicians. He used to be a boxer, right?

Anyway, despite the desperate protestations of Torie and the other Romneybots who are obviously very terrified of this issue, it's clear that there is something very, very bad, something potentially campaign-ending in Romney's tax returns, that is forcing him to pay the comparatively smaller costs of not releasing them.

()

I wisht it were possible to force a German to reveal his tax returns. :(

How perspicacious of you to be able to peer deep down into my innermost soul, and discern that about me of which I do not even consciously know myself. You should be a therapist!  :P

By the way, isn't "Mittbot" more euphoniously harmonious than "Romneybot?"

There is no downside for Reid. He  "repeated" what "someone else" said, and even pointed out that it could be completely false. The people of Nevada won't remember this in 4 years (and if you think they will, then you must go to clown school).

Ah, the old "let the bastard deny it" trick. Either Romney releases his returns and reveals whatever potentially damaging thing is in them, or he doesn't and lets everyone talk some more about this and assume it's likely true. Got to hand to Reid, he's a much better politician than he is a caucus leader.

Reminds me of Pelosi saying that she has some really bad dirt on Gingrich when he was up in the polls during the primary.

Which turned out to be 15 year old, publicly available info.

On the OP: LOL. Reid playing an old LBJ trick.

I guess Mormonism is only an issue when it comes to your least favorite politicians, eh Lief?

Reid isn't in your face about being a part of that Satanic cult...

...but he is a member. 

#sarcasm

Fuzzybigfoot may be a bit tone deaf when it comes to internet talk.  Srry  :(  lol

It was probably a dream.

Harry Reid isn't running for president.

Oh, so if he ran for president he would get the same amount of criticism that Romney got for his faith?  Really?

Precisely!  Every Democrat should be out on the talk shows demanding to see Romney's taxes and implying he's a criminal.

This campaign is seriously reminding me of 2004. Aside from a president with about 49% approval running against a MA opponent known for "flip flopping." Romney's greatest personal strength is his businesss success, which is becoming his greatest liability. Now rumors are floating, which will probably be stoked with cheap 527 ads. At some point there could be enough doubt that anytime he mentions his experience, there be enough doubt that it negates any positivity.

Romney is way better funded than Kerry though. Then again, Kerry didn't use all of his campaign money.

as Harry Reid says, that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years...can he continue as the GOP nominee?

http://news.yahoo.com/harry-reids-wild-speculation-mitt-romneys-unreleased-tax-215329613--abc-news-politics.html

It's not true, and there will be no way of verifying whether or not it is. Romney is the nominee.

To be honest it doesn't need to be true, because we will never know as long as Romney keeps his tax records secret.

As long as voters see Romney as an out of touch millionaire it will hurt him, and keeping this topic in the news only continues this.

Doesn't Reid have some financial issues himself involving how he made his money?

Of course, because the contemporary GOP has no morals.

Then how do you know it's not true?

Because if 1) He paid literally "no" taxes, he would be in jail and 2) I have a hard time beleiving he found a way to reduce his tax burden to such a low amount, more or less zero, even with clever mastery of the tax code and all the intricacies within it.

Ergo, you don't know

Mondale, that's a garbage standard to hold up. I'm not a birther, but I wasn't there to see little Barrie exit his mom's uterus in Hawaii, so I don't know that he's really a natural born citizen.

I don't actually believe he was born in Kenya. So do you really, honestly believe Mitt Romney paid NO TAXES FOR TEN YEARS? Come on.

Idk. It is up to Romney to prove him wrong.

Politically, sure. But not in terms of actual truth. This is a country where you're innocent until proven guilty.

Obama has provided his long-form birth certificate.

But you didn't see him at the moment of his birth.

"Ergo, you don't know."

Anyhow, I'm not getting much into this. I got into a dumb argument yesterday where people knew exactly what I meant but were pressing the point anyway. Bottom line: I understand why liberals are pretending they believe Mitt Romney never paid tax. I also understand (or hope) that many of them aren't naive enough to actually believe it.

I'll accept his tax returns as proof he's paid his fair share. He hasn't.

The contemporary Democrats have no morals.

You're a little on the slow side aren't you?

The rumour that Obama wasn't born in the US was dismissed with the release of his birth certificates.

The rumour that Romney paid no taxes for 10 can't be dismissed until he releases his tax returns. As long as he's unwilling to release his tax returns he's inviting more of these rumours.

Ignoring Reid's absurd assumption that is impossible for millionaires with low (or non-existent, as is the assertion) tax rates to be worth $250 million or less...what ever happened to class? There is plenty to attack Romney on as a candidate with resorting to this sort of childishness. Essentially, Reid is publicly accusing Romney of a crime. Should his accusations prove to be false, Reid is guilty of slander - in which case Romney could score a few easy points should he file a civil suit.

To Romney's credit; In spite of all of his screw ups, he's handled this situation flawlessly. Stone-wall and let the Democrats look desperate. The polls reflect the weak sauce of the game Democratic politicians are playing.

Describe us your relation with reality.

So you're conceding that questions about Obama's place of birth were legitimate enough to warrant the calls for his birth certificate?

What I'm talking about is Mondale's standard that you've got to "know" for sure. Except you can't know anything for sure, even with official documents, because people will still challenge their veracity. Baseless conspiracies are never put to rest.

Liberals are just grasping at any issue that takes voters minds off the economy; and make Romney seem like an evil wall street capitalist shark. 

I'll tell you what is in Romney's tax returns, probably the same stuff that was in the past 2 years!  Since 2008, he has been a private citizen without a full time job.  His income is derived from speeches and investments.  Should he disclose every investment he's made in his lifetime?  Maybe or maybe not. 

He's been involved with a lot of businesses; and some of those takeovers have been controversial.  Liberals are just trying to grab onto anything controversial that would make Romney look bad based on his past investments, and business operations. 

He probably has paid less in Income tax because he hasn't had a full time job since 2002.  Most of his taxes are capital gains.  It might seem lower than the average middle class worker, but that is the nature of the industry he was working in.  Romney retired from full-time work in 2002, so why would he have to pay taxes if he had very limited income tax? 

If nothing is wrong with it, then why doesn't he just release them? It makes no sense if there's nothing controversial in his tax returns, but he refuses to release them even though all it does is raise questions and is a net negative. Btw, it isn't just Liberals. Hardcore conservative politicians have asked him to release them too.

He doesn't have to pay any income taxes because he has no steady income.  He retired in 2002. 

I think he might have a lot of controversial investments or offshore accounts.  He probably has complicated trusts and retirement accounts.  I'm sure there's some tricky tax avoidance techniques. 

He doesn't want to release them because they'll stir up more controversy.  If the government is so interested in his finances, Obama can just audit Romney.  There's nothing wrong or political with that. 

There's no real comprehension of how much damage Romney has DONE TO HIMSELF.

He's done more damage by looking like he's done something tricky, than just being upfront from the get go and addressing it.

RCP average is Obama +2 at the moment. If people were buying into what the Obama camp is accusing Romney of, the polls would reflect that.

Do you really want to apply that standard? The oldest line of defense for believing in a flat earth, denying the moon landings occured, or doubting evolution and OMG Climate Change. "If I didn't see it, then it didn't happen." Again, do you really want to use that standard?

You and Hagrid are completely mischaracterizing what I said. I said you don't know whether he paid any taxes because he hasn't released his tax returns. That's a fact. Should I just trust that Romney paid taxes because he says so while he continues to hide his returns. He has something to hide, that much is certain. And don't give me the crap about it being impossible to not pay any taxes. This guys have secret overseas bank accounts for pete's sake!

I have a far more reason to trust Romney then I do Harry Reid, a notorious machine hack who has enriched himself by clever utilization of his own position, who wouldn't even be anything but a hasbeen, had someone competent stepped forward to challenge him in 2010.

There is a logical political motivation for Romney not to release them and that is to keep the groper nasties of your guy's opposition research team, who will spin, twist, lie, and mischaracterize every financial move in order to "Kill Romney", away from them. And we know this for a fact based on what has happened with the returns he has already released.

There is no evidence of law breaking and beyond that it is a political question. One that is designed to cast doubt upon the candidate and put the burden of proof on him, true. But it also opens up Reid to criticism, and considering his disturbing record, his credibility is none existant at this point.

If Romney has "secret" bank accounts, that would not appear on his tax return, and Mittens would be guilty of criminal tax evasion if the suggestion is that the income he earned was hidden by virtue of parking that income in a foreign bank account. And just what income would that be that he is hiding?  I mean his income was made from Bain deals, and the Bain fee charged to investors plus presumably some participation in after fee profits to the extent made. The investors paid the fee, and the profits earned and distributed.  Where did that money go?  I mean, if you are going to be a tax criminal, you don't want to leave little gaps like that. That makes you a dumb tax criminal, and dumb criminals of the white collar variety tend to be bagged and incarcerated.

I heard Obama was the worst student in the history of Harvard Law.  He almost never went to class and his professors covered for him for an unknown reason.  This is undeniably true unless BO releases his transcripts and produces some authentic term papers.  He has done so much damage to himself by keeping everything about his past as secret as possible...     

These accounts may not have been "secret", but they were certainly secretive since he hid his money overseas. And I never said he did anything criminal, just something very, very damaging that might cost him the election.

This may also be the problem in the returns, but I guess we'll never know:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-mysteries-of-mitt-romneys-financial-records.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-mysteries-of-mitt-romneys-financial-records.html?_r=1)

And that's why he became president of the law review...stop being an idiot, you useless troll

whenever a poster starts with "I heard..." you know what comes next is the most ridiculous BS ever (on both sides).

Either link to credible sources or don't make $#!T up

I'm thinking AmericanNation was making a snarky, comparative statement (correct me if I'm wrong). Why should we believe Reid's BS more than AmericanNation's when they are holding the same amount of evidence to substantiate their claims?

I don't think you understand how the Harvard Law Review works.

It is hard to tell the difference between wingnuttery and parody

exactly.
Mondale doesn't understand how it is illogical to like Reid's crap and hate mine, when they are in fact the same thing.  Intellectual inconsistency has been successfully exposed!

Typical bad argument by a lefty:  "you're dumb, you're dumb, you're dumb; I'm smart, I can call you names, no I will not substantiate my statements with facts or a logical argument!!!, you're soooo dumb."

It is this and other ploys used by the left that reminds me that me, as well as the American people, that they have nothing to run on but smears, lies, and personal attacks.

I'm feeling pretty good about our chances this November.

Romney has decided to make the conversation be about his taxes, and to keep the subject there as long as possible. I say, indulge him.

I don't know if you're a dumb, AmericanNation, but you're certainly an ignorant if you think someone can become the president of the Harvard Law Review while being "the worst student in the history of Harvard Law."

I don't think that, I created a perfect parody of Harry Reid.  If you think my parody is ignorant, than you think Reid's statement is ignorant.  Simple logic. 

What ? 
"Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the BO and the media is so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.
Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.
Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.
Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity." -AC
...boy, that is perfectly said. 

I  assume Romney is smart enough to figure all this out on his own. And yet, rather than end all this rumor-mongering by releasing his earlier returns, he prolongs the discussion by stonewalling. Since I think Romney is a smart guy, I assume this is his intention, and that he thinks it's in his interests to keep this conversation going as long as possible.

I now consider Reid to be no better than the morons who clamour for Obama's birth certificate. It's exactly the same argument of "here's a ridiculous statement, now prove it to be untrue." If anything, Reid is worse, since he holds a public position of authority.

So do dozens of Republican governors, senators and congressmen who asked for Obama'sd birth certificate.

Well I'd include them in that too, but it's no defence for Reid. The lot of them, they're all morons.

Except that Obama's birth was reported in the papers, he'd written his biography about being born in the U.S., so accusations about the birth certificate assumed Obama was a liar and was also suspect because of his race and name.

Reid's playing dirty politics here but he can do so because, unlike Obama's birth, Romney's finances and taxes are a black box and Romney has stonewalled all requests for info.

You wouldn't compare the fact of someone's birth in a certain place, which is easy to verify without a birth certificate, to someone's tax rate, which is obscure and which Romney is the first candidate in a while to hide something on, would you?

And even worse then that because he is a complete hypocrit on the issue of financial disclosure. Damn I wish we had bagged this SOB in 2010.

The use of the terms "secretive"  and "hid" imply criminal behavior in this context, unless you qualify them as not so at the time.

GOP primary voters loved freedom and the Constitution too much to nominate an impure candidate.

If the primary voters had a chance to get to know Angle, they wouldn't have nominated her. She now polls around 10% in primary polls for races she considered entering. The leading candidate collapsed, Tarkanian never got going really and Angle was there on the seen to reap the benefits with her excentricities being unknown to much of the primary electorate.

You do all know that you must disclose all foreign accounts on your 1040 tax return form don't you?  Do any of you file tax returns?

Romney is now responding to Reid by saying he paid lots of taxes.

The word that's missing is "income."

Romney has surely paid a lot of property taxes on his estates in New Hampshire and on the California coast.

Do you actually think Mittens deliberately avoided the use of the word "income," for the reason that you imply?  Or are you just trying to get a rise out of the Pubs around here for kicks?  :)

For reasons I have mentioned before, it would be almost impossible for Mittens not to have paid income taxes. Do I need to repeat them again for you?

...It's hard to imagine why someone would hesitate to put detailed and complicated documents in front of such a well behaved and intelligent mob.  

Did he have any income to pay income tax on?  man o man.    

CNN's Dana Bash:

A rube goldberg machine of unnamed sources. lol

Any day that Romney has to defend not releasing his returns and avow that he isn't a tax cheat is a day he loses and only reinforces the perception of him being an elitist 1%er.  So the damage that would be done if he released more must be pretty bad for them to continue to endure this.

Perhaps they think that once they announce their VP and have their convention this will all go away and not be brought up in September and October. But that is some serious wishful thinking.

Just like Watergate.

Quick question for those who believe in the IRS: If the IRS failed to properly collect taxes from a multi-millionaire for over a decade while bringing the hammer down on countless middle class people for petty sums of money, what does that say about their competence and value to society?

Of course, this is a snarky rhetorical question, because there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Romney paid no income taxes for over a decade. It's ludacris for a full-grown man like Harry Reid to be acting like this.

This is the same reason why there would have never been a Steve Jobs or Welch Presidency. There is simply no way a successfully business man can withstand the dogs of ignorant populism released by desperate insider politicians.

Considering that businessmen tend to make lousy politicians, is that actually a bad thing?

Indeed. And some of the best presidents (Lincoln, Truman) were lousy businessmen.

Most of our "businessmen" presidents turned out to be horrible failures (Hoover, Carter, Harding), and as LL points out, most of our presidents who were bad at business (Lincoln, Truman) turned out to be pretty good.

Harding's problem had to do with his own personal failings and his unfortunate luck of dying in office before he could do anything to rectify the situation, not his business record. Lincoln was a successfull attorney who represented corporations like the railroads, akin to representing big oil today, and made a good amount doing it. He would probably be ripped apart for that, today.

This isn't an argument about the IRS, this is an argument about the serial deception perpetrated by Mitt Romney.

Romney isn't deceiving anyone in this. He is trying to prevent further deception by the Obama opposition research team, by not providing them with the instrument for such.

My friend, you're blaming the maid because your frat-brothers made a mess in the house.  The society is filthy - any society that would allow such inequality can only be described as filthy - and the IRS, while in theory a step in the right direction, in effect really doesn't change a thing.

Isn't that just another way of saying that the American public would never approve of large corporations if they knew how they actually worked?

Romney should just release his tax returns to put these people in their place. Or perhaps there is something there..... Since I strongly oppose all these little loopholes in the tax code which helps the rich and connected pay less taxes, I am enjoying watching Romney squirm.

And just to make clear I don't think there is anything illegal in there. I just don't think he paid his fair share (fairness not being synonymous with legality). When a person making just 60-80k realizes he is paying the same rate as Romney......

Perhaps at first, but when confronted with the alternative of higher prices and less access to consumer goods the public would quiet. This is largely why "free trade" is still a popular position.

So why are his taxes so complicated? Of course this is a great argument for tax simplification as well but Romney should have been paying way more in taxes than he did. That's the problem here, not deception by anyone.

I don't understand the Republican argument here. Why the hell shouldn't Romney do with every major Presidential candidate since, um, his father, has done and release a few more years of tax returns? ???

Look, we all know his pathetic and bumbling response to this is revealing - there's clearly something bad - maybe very bad - in those tax returns, otherwise why on earth isn't he releasing them right now and making the Democrats look incredibly silly? ???

The argument against this doesn't make sense - Mitt Romney's so special that he shouldn't be subject to the same kind of vetting - no matter how intrusive you may think it is - that every Presidential candidate in the last forty years has? Please.

Look, it's possible Romney is playing some kind of grand political chess game and I'll end up looking stupid when he triumphantly releases his boring, clean tax returns. I think we can deduce that's not going to happen.

This isn't like people are asking for his dental records - this is a normal, routine part of running for President, and the fact Romney is frantically attempting to escape it is very, very suspicious - and you're all operating under a massive collective delusion if you think it's not going to hurt him politically.

People asked the same questions regarding Obama's birth certificate. "Why not just release it and prove us wrong?". It's because political battles aren't won by giving due diligence to every ridiculous allegation thrown at you, which is exactly why Team Romney is telling the Democrats to shove it. These tax allegations against Romney are every bit as ludacris and politically motivated as the birther nonsense.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but I wasn't aware that it was common practice for Presidential candidates to release their birth certificates.

My tax return runs about 50 pages. It takes me about a week to prepare. :(

Torie, I think it's certainly possible he didn't say "income" on purpose. I don't believe Reid's story but I think it's possible he avoided taxes altogether at least once.

This distinction between paying taxes and paying income taxes is always on my mind because of the common claim by some partisans that the poor don't pay taxes in order to justify income tax cuts.

If his business ethics leave something to be desired, then he does not deserve to be President. Such is even more important than taxes.

Harry Reid is the world's biggest freedom fighter:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79365.html?hp=f2 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79365.html?hp=f2)

What a badass. So glad he survived in 2010.

I agree with your second paragraph completely brittain33, which is why the average tax rate looking at all taxes is lower for those earning 100K to 200K than those earning less than 100K. However, bear in mind that this regressive part of the tax structure is substantially mitigated by the earned income tax credit, food stamps,  etc. Which raises its own problems, because the implicit marginal tax rate when your income bumps up from 20K to say 40K, and you lose the transfer payments, becomes uncomfortably high from a public policy standpoint. It just doesn't "pay" that much to try to move on up, and out of the transfer payment zone. However, to mitigate that, means more transfer payments for those earning more, to slow down the phase out. It is a tough nut to crack.

I don't know how many times the Romney haters in this thread have said the exact same thing over and over and over again.  Eight pages of the exact same argument.  Come on, please, somebody, get more original.   

Only voters who have a reasoning level below that of a 12 year old would actually fall for this UNSUBSTANTIATED story from an ANONYMOUS source who doesn't have the GUTS to say it in public.

What this cowardly, low life, excuse for a Senator, Reid, has done, is to emphasize that the Democrats and Obama have absolutely no ability and absolutely no clue, whatsoever, in how to deal with the disastrous state of the American economy, and so, in desperation, they trot out "I could care less" Reid to throw out another smoke screen with an UNSUBSTANTIATED story from an ANONYMOUS source who doesn't have the GUTS to say it in public.   

()

when the all caps and bold get pulled out, you know a line of attack is working

No, you know how amateurish and desperate the line of attack really is.

Oh, we're talking about politicians deserving to be president, are we?

What a fun activity. If Obama deserves to be re-elected, deciding on the criteria must be like playing a game of Mad Libs.

It isn't. Nor is it common practice for an incumbent's re-election campaign to accuse their opponent of financial malpractice and possible felonies without any credible evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Indeed. It's much more common for an incumbent to accuse his opponent of being anti-American and soft on terrorism.

That's a strawman argument, I never suggested that I approved Bush's campaign tactic.

What does it matter if people approve? Bush did it, and it worked. Dems could wring our hands but it won't change. I'm glad Reid is playing this game even though I don't believe him. Republicans may not have "supported" the swift boating or Gore bashing but you still voted for your guy and he won. So it goes.

OK Mr. Trash Talk Majority Leader..........

You made the allegations.

So you and your anonymous, "credible" source, if he or she even exists, who doesn't have the guts to make the allegations in public, provide proof of your trash talk.

Reid made the allegations, it is up to Reid to prove them.

Once Romney releases his tax returns, Reid will gladly prove these allegations.

Maddow (she's the only talking head I can stand) had a great little piece on Romney's intransigence here. He used the same exact tactics when he was running to be Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and Democrats wanted to disqualify him because he did release his taxes which they felt would reveal that he wasn't even an official resident of MA. He talked tough, told the press to trust him and then at the latest possible date, after incurring a lot of damage, he released his returns: he had to retroactively pay his taxes in MA. He wasn't a resident until he was running for higher office in MA and realized it would be a liability.

If his tax returns were clean, he'd release them as soon as possible.

Romney's whole rationale shows that there is something bad in there. For the one year he has already released he has been hit for swiss bank accounts, tax shelters, a strangely ginormous IRA and most specificlaly his low rate of 13.9%

So if the previous years are more of the same then there is no reason not to release them. Therefore I take Romney at his word, there is something worse in the other years, and it is probably the rate he paid.

If he paid a higher rate, why wouldn't he release them to show that 2010 was just an aberration and that he ususally paid a higher rate. I doubt his rate was ever 0%, but I wouldnt be surprised if his accountants had figured a way to get it under 10% for some years. Hell this is the guy who wrote off his wife's horse as a business deduction.

It is hard to trust Reid once one sees the depiction of him in Scorsese's Casino.

Romney released over twenty years of tax returns to the McCain campaign in 2008. There is nothing to hide or he would not have agreed to such vetting with the McCain campaign. Furthermore, if Romney paid no taxes for ten years then the IRS would be all over him much like the Feds were all over John Edwards. Of course, Romney paid every dime he owed and not a penny more. Romney is a law-abiding citizen who paid more in taxes last year than most people on this board will pay in their entire lifetime (hell, he probably paid more in taxes than most liberals on this board will earn in their entire lifetime).

With that said, if I were in charge of Romney's campaign I would release the returns right now during the middle of the Olympics, before Joe Voter starts paying serious attention to the campaigns. The day after the Colorado Movie Massacre would have been ideal timing. The ball was dropped, so to speak.

This is the worst thread on the forum.

There you go again.  Nothing original.

Oh, as soon as Romney releases his tax returns we will see he paid no taxes, or we will see he paid a low tax rate, or we will see he was hiding taxes, or we will see he used Ann Romney's tea spoon collection as a tax write off.

You are the ones accusing Romney.  It is up to you and your friend Reid to prove these allegations.  Romney has no obligation whatsoever to give all the hate mongers any information.  Any information Romney releases would be twisted and turned out of all proportion and out of any sense of reality by the hate mongers. 

Romney has nothing to prove to you or Reid.  You are the ones making these unfounded allegations,  So go ahead, give me proof.  Prove it.  I demand proof.  I'm waiting.  Come on, I'm waiting.

The proof is in Mitt Romney's tax returns. We would prove it if he'd release them.

Again, you have presented me with no proof of your allegations.  Just more of the same tired old argument that you accusers have been leaning on now for the 10,000th time.

Proof, proof, I want proof, I demand proof, I demand you prove your allegations.  Come on, give me proof, proof, proof.

URL says it all.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/harry-reid-fundraises-off-of-charge-that-romney

It's hard to see that this fight has been anything but good for Reid and, by extension, Obama.

Who are you demanding proof of? What will you do if you don't get proof?

Do you not grasp that this is all about PR and messaging and not the actual accusation? Since you are going with the username "OBAMA = NIXON II," you must have a feel for unprovable hyperbole, no?

Poor Winfield, driven crazy by how hard Reid is owning Romney on this issue.

Ah, still no proof I see.

Just praise for your political hero Reid.

Since none of you have been able to produce one shred of proof, it only stands to reason that you therefore have no proof.

This is the lowest form of scum poltiics in the history of Presidential elections. 

And I thought Nixon was bad.  He pales in comparison to Obama and his mob.

We can't produce proof because Romney refuses to release his tax records like his father and every presidential nominee since has done. It's not that difficult to understand bro.

The fact that you continue to insinuate that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate is a liar, though, is disgusting, and I call on you to apologize and retract your incredibly disrespectful comments.

Nixon was a sneaky liar. A highly effective POTUS, but a liar nonetheless. I don't know where you see Obama as worse than Nixon, so I want proof. Proof, Proof Proof, Proof, Proof. I want proof about this claim. And if you give it to me, I will accept that Obama=Nixon III. Cheney=Nixon II.

Ah, trying to change the subject I see from proof on Romney not paying taxes for 10 years to Mr. trash talk Reid.

Very smart tactic.  And I don't blame you for trying to change the subject, because you have no proof about Romney and his taxes.  Therefore, your little ploy is not going to work.  Because this thread is about Reid's accusation that Romney paid no taxes for ten years.

And when you can produce proof that Romney paid no taxes for ten years come back and see me.  We'll talk then.

How about Romney release more than 2 years of taxes? Obama and Biden have returns going back to last century.

Now Romney could just be toying with us, but if it's November and there are still no tax returns, I think we can safely assume that there's something pretty damaging in there.

Well, you can certainly present your idea to the Romney campaign and see what they say.

I could also present it to a brick wall. Probably about as useful.

Winfield, could you please wrap your head around the idea that if Romney doesn't give us his tax returns, we can't prove a goddamn thing. I admit that Reid's claim is probably baseless, but you can't just yell "Where's the proof?" at everything we say about his taxes because he's obviously hiding something!

No, not really. First of all, Reid entered national office a man of limited means, paid for 100 semesters of college for his sons, yet, emerged as a multi-millionaire whom lives at the Ritz-Carlton. It's practically political suicide for him to demand Romney completely open his books. Already, Reid has refused to release his tax returns. Second, everyone knows how fundamentally unfair it is to make anonymous charges based allegedly on anonymous sources. He is being reduced to a laughingstock as other folks are making anonymous accusations against him based on "unnamed sources." Third, there are real legal questions in Reid's statement that could result in him being forced to give sworn answers about his "source." Fourth, the hedgefund billionaires whom fund Obama aren't going to be happy with the sinisterization of tax deferral rules such as carried interest.  Warren Buffet is going to die having not payed taxes on the tens of billions of dollars he accumulated in his Berkshire Hathaway position, and, will evade taxes after his death by donating it to "charity."

What you should be able to prove is which ten years you are talking about?

Reid's source is Romney's parents' milkman. The years in question are 1953-1963. That's right: Romney did not pay any taxes during the entirety of the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations! It was not until after LBJ's Tax Reduction Act did Romney start paying taxes. WHY DID ROMNEY NOT PAY TAXES FOR TEN YEARS?

I F[INKS]ING CAN'T! There are no tax returns with which I can prove it, but there is reason to believe that he has used shady financial tactics in the past, most notably the shady financial tactics displayed in the one year he gave us.

There's obviously a reason he hasn't shown them to us, otherwise he would have.

There is nothing shady about what Romney did. It's called following the law, and not paying a penny more than you have to in the process. It's called being smart.

Being financially successful and responsible does not equate to being shady.

It is a sad day in America when success is shameful and failure is celebrated...

The main failure that's being celebrated here is Romney's, to release as much of his tax returns as other presidential candidates do, by such august posters as you.

Windfield, an honest question.

Why are you so abrasive and offensive? Why this constant hyperbole, whining, and victimization in which you attack people who disagree with you?

When you come into this forum girded for war, and treat people who disagree with you as morons or villains, you make the forum worse for everyone. People like you and krazen raise the temperature in here and force a response. It degrades the mood of the forum.

Why can't you treat people like you would want to be treated, like a recognizable human?

Oh Brittain33 , chill out a bit. I quite enjoyed the reasonably decorous invective on this thread myself. Granted the ball was not moved anyplace much, but sometimes football plays are fun to watch even if no yardage is gained or lost, just watching the bodies bang into each other. :P

Yeah, I'm out of proportion for this thread, this was the sum of many times reading posts like that and just not understanding where they come from or why they come across that way.

It's actually really funny how similar this is to the Birther conspiracy and how much the Dems are denying the comparison. :P

There is a fairly obvious difference here -- releasing one's tax returns is standard for a presidential campaign; releasing one's birth certificate isn't.

The difference isn't a deal-breaker though. Both accusations are highly ridiculous. The only difference is, some people actually believe Obama was born in Kenya.

One thing this board has in common with Michael Phelps, it constantly breaks its one records. ;)

Some are treating this thing like it is a court of law talking about proof and meeting legal requirements. But this is the court of public opinion, and as I noted before, any day the Romney team have to defend the limited release of tax returns for the richest candidate in recent memory is a day they are losing.

I can remember during the primaries that many Republicans pointed out that nominating a financier in the first election following a recession that was triggered by Wall Street was not a smart idea. Remember how the party lurched from one flavor of the month to another, all in a desparate hope to find someone who wasn't Mitt Romney. One just has to look at Romney's current ratings vs past nominees by the summer to see he has a huge likabillity gap. That is what this debate is all about.

Meeting the minimum requirement and arguing with Harry Reed over whether or not he paid taxes is not making people like Mitt Romney any more.

Reid has been committing political suicide since 2006. He has been a laughing stock ever since he thought he had Rush by the balls in 2007, when he should have been focused on more important issues then policing a controversial entertainer. Republicans dropped the ball in 2010 and let him get away with it for another six years.

Romney needs to get the subject back onto the economy and on his own agenda, which he also hasn't articulated well yet, just like his own personal image. This needs to occur by the convention and preferably before that. His campaign has been horrible at doing any of the big things needed to repair or deal with problems that dog Romney, from Bain, to taxes, to the auto companies. Therefore, it isn't promising that they would be able to change the narrative substantially as a result of anything coming out of Boston.

The only way Romney can change the subject on this issue is to release the returns (and have them contain nothing that is substantially more damaging than what is already out there). Otherwise I see this as continuing to be a distraction/drag all the way to November.

But releasing more returns is still not enough because he is already behind. His "the economy sucks so vote for me because Obama is in over his head" isn't enough to give people a reason to vote for him. He has to make people both like him and believe in him. I'm just not sure he has it in him to do that.

So...you are admitting that they claims are 100% unsubstantiated and politically motivated? I think we are on the same page...except that what you seem to be suggesting is that you can get past Obama doing it because you're still bitter about the 00 and 04 elections; which isn't very becoming...

Well, one, this is Reid and not Obama who made the "10 year" claim, two, of course they are politically motivated, this is a campaign, and three, I couldn't put a number on how unsubstantiated they are or not because we have no proof Reid is lying. I'm just not as profoundly shocked by this as some Republicans are, because the only thing that's shocking is that for the first time since '96 the Dems are more competent at this kind of agenda-setting than Republicans are.

From Jon Ralston's twitter:

So Sunday filled with "all Romney has to do is release returns to prove Reid wrong" chatter. #princeharry #sayanything #anymeansnecessary

one. This is actually a good point. Why is the Senate Majority Leader spending so much time researching into Mitt Romney's personal wealth, even going so far as to bring it up on the floor of the Senate? "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!", Senator.

two. Are you saying it's okay to accuse people of potential felonies without any evidence (slander) because it's campaign season or are you saying it's okay this time because of what Bush and Rove did 8 years ago?

three. We don't need to prove that Reid is lying, he has to prove that he is telling the truth. There is one thing that is shocking in this issue, and it's how Democrats quickly forget the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty"

Of course that's only a principle in a court of law. Anyways, neither side can really complain about the other hurling mud...

The felony comment was one Obama staff member and that was pretty quickly dropped. Obama's been hitting Romney for paying less than average Americans do, which is highly believable, because it's what was shown in the one year's return he did release. Obama is making hay from Romney's using tax shelters and legal maneuvers ordinary Americans don't know about, but really should, like the carried interest scam.

As for Reid saying he knows someone who knows Romney didn't have any tax liability for 10 years, I don't believe it, but it's the Republicans' problem that Harry Reid knows how to make attacks like this without proof and not get in trouble.

Again, I am not asking anyone to "prove" any accusation. I am merely asking that they "clarify" their accusation by "specifying" which years they were claiming Romney paid no income taxes.

I would also note that at best a "Bain Investor" would only be in a position to know how much taxable income Romney earned at Bain Capital. Generally, employees don't provide copies of their income tax forms to their employers.

There are four basic possibilities about his alleged "source:" It was someone whom knew Romney personally, and, is repeating a statement by Romney; It was someone whom did his taxes or had access to the firm's copies; it was someone with access to his IRS records; or the "source" was a figment of Reid's imagination.

Surely, Reid could answer a question as simply as how his "source" knew?  The more he refuses to cite such details the more likely it is that his "source" is a figment of his imagination.

In the court of public opinion, filing anonymous charges based on anonymous "sources" is completely unfair.

How much did Romney pay in taxes in 2010 (as shown in the 2011 release)?

They said close to $3 million on one of the Sunday shows (can't remember which one). If he made $20 Million and paid an effective rate of 14% then that seems about right. In that case he paid more in income taxes in one year then most people make over the course of their entire working careers. 

The other thing is most people don't pay the statutory tax rate at any level of income. I highly doubt Romney even has a lower effective rate then the vast majority of Americans. From experience, I can say that for poor folk it isn't even a positive number, no where close in fact. What is the effective tax rate for the middle class?

Let me give you some tissue to wipe your tears and some pearls to clutch.

Is the Reid attack fair? No. Were the Bain attacks all fair? No.

...what's your point?


In 2012 the Obama team are clearly not going to fall into ways of past democrats. They are going to play just as hard as Lee Atwater, Karl Rove and decades of GOP mudslingers.

Is it pretty? No. Is it good for the country? Absolutely not.

Does it work? Yes.

THe only danger here is blowback on Obama's nice guy ratings, but that is why they have Reid doing it and not Obama, his campaign or even Biden.

Oh, poor Mitt Romney being attacked unfairly. It's not like he's told literally nothing but lies about President Obama and his record for the past year. It's not like he's openly embraced the worst and most vitriolic members of his party, who have denounced Obama as un-American, traitorous, a non-citizen, and worse. No, until now, Romney has run a sterling campaign full of truth and decency.

It's not similar at all...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/ed-rollins-romney-should-release-more-tax-returns (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/ed-rollins-romney-should-release-more-tax-returns)

Republican strategist Ed Rollins joined several other high profile conservatives Sunday in saying that Mitt Romney should release more tax returns in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I would have put out five or six years,” Rollins said. “Two years is not enough, obviously.”

Rollins said releasing the returns is the only way to keep the issue from dogging him for the rest of the campaign.

    “I think at this point in time, it’s gonna dog him all the way and he needs to get it behind him. He’s paid a lot of money in taxes, he’s made a lot of money – I think he should release more taxes.”

“Really?” host Chris Wallace asked.

“Sure, absolutely,” Rollins affirmed. “At the end of the day, you come to a point where you basically give a little bit more, and then you move forward. He’s gotta do that. Two years is not enough, obviously.”

Jones, you are being completely inconsistent. On the one hand you are saying "I admit that Reid's claim is probably baseless" yet on the other hand you are saying "because he's obviously hiding something."

But then again, inconsistency has always  been the hallmark of these vile accusations against Romney by the likes of the disgusting Reid and his ilk.

You and your friends are the accusers.  Therefore it is up to you and your friends to prove your statements. 

Hmmm, let me think, how much proof have you and your friends put forward of your vile accusations against Romney? 

Oh yes, I remember now, 0, as in ZERO.     

Romney is not probably hiding something; he is hiding something. He's hiding all but one year of his tax returns from the voters. That's an objective fact.

He. Is. Hiding. Something. From. Us.

Now you can speculate as to his reasons, but you can't deny that he's hiding something, because that's a true fact.

Only in your mind, my friend, only in your mind.  Not in fact.

And once you can give me some proof of your vile accusations, come back and see me.  Then we'll talk.   

No, it is not only in my mind. How can you deny that he is hiding his tax returns?! It's literally a fact that he is hiding his tax returns from the voters!!!!! ()

Apparently all those Republicans that urge Mittens to release his tax returns have drunk the Obama Kool Aid.

They are not demanding he release the returns to satisfy some standard. They are recommending he do so as a means to get this behind him. The problem is that they also don't know what is in them and thus don't know calculus behind Romney's decision not to do so.

An even more obvious difference is that Obama released his birth certificate.  Romney stubbornly refuses to release his tax returns.  Given the example set by his own father, I can't for the life of me see why Romney didn't arrange his tax affairs in the past decade to be in a position to do so without having to worry about something politically embarrassing being on there.


By the way, does anyone know offhand if any of the people on Romney's short list has released their own tax returns already and if so, how many years?  It would be embarrassing at this point for the running mate to be more forthcoming on this petty issue that the Mittbot is.

...you seriously think Romney released his tax returns to the standards for Presidential candidates? You seriously think that that objectively happened in the empirical past? Are you ing serious?

And just why should anybody take seriously the allegations of some sleaze Senator with an axe to grind from an unnamed anonymous source, if he or she exists at all? 

Because Romney is objectively hiding something. There's not any real indication as to what but it's an empirical fact that he is.

You calling John McCain a liar?

McCain saw Romney's tax returns and he says there is nothing untoward about them.

Good for McCain, but after all, you're calling Harry Reid a liar. Why can't the rest of us see them?

Because either way you spin it, if "the rest of us" sees them, "the rest of us" will spend three months bothering Romney about non-issues in his tax returns.

That might be the case now but it wouldn't have been if he'd just done it all at once like pretty much every other Presidential hopeful since his father. And are you implying that we won't spend three months bothering him about why won't he release his tax returns if he doesn't? Because we totally will.

And the reason the smear campaign against Romney will continue by the sleaze Obama campaign and by sleaze artists such as Reid, is because Obama is so totally in over his head and has absolutely no clue whatsoever to do about the U.S. economy, is to create a smoke screen and a diversion to take away from the fact that Obama has no clue what to do about the U.S. economy, in which unemployment is in fact on the rise.

And the fact that unemployment is on the rise under Obama is an absolute fact.

A democratic in the know told me Reid beats his wife....

You guys are aware that Landra Gould Reid is in chemotherapy, right? What happened to chronically ill wives being off-limits for this sort of rhetoric, even considering that I know you're not being serious?

If someone accused Reid of beating his wife without disclosing his source it would seem like a cheap smear.

If someone accused Reid of beating his wife without disclosing his source and also it was standard procedure for senators to take a lie detector test about whether they beat their wife and Reid was the only one to refuse to take the test, even after the accusation, I'd say it's fairly likely that the accusation was true.

Only thing we know for sure is 10 years ago Romney asserted he paid taxes in Massachusetts.  Then it came out that was false.  Now he's asserting he paid "a lot of taxes".

Now, here is the absolute definitive truth

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republican-chairman-calls-sen-reid-a-dirty-liar-on-romneys-taxes-20120805,0,3653522.story

“I think he’s lying,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said on CNN about Reid. “I think he’s created an issue here. I think he’s making things up.”

“I’m not going to respond to a dirty liar,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said during an interview on ABC’s "This Week." The host, George Stephanopoulos gave him a chance to temper his remarks.

“You stand by that — you think Harry Reid is a dirty liar?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“I just said it,” replied Priebus.

Lindsey Graham is a hackish eunuch and Reince Priebus is an idiot. There, I said those things. Does that make them true?

Graham and Priebus have spoken more truth than that sleaze hack Reid has.

Such as? Just because you call Reid a sleaze hack doesn't make it true. I could call you a sleaze hack...

Lindsey Graham is a hackish eunuch and Reince Priebus is an idiot. There, I said those things. Does that make them true?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There.  You prove my point.  Because Reid says those things about Romney does not make them true either.

Yeah and by calling Reid a liar, you aren't proving your point either. But Reid is winning because he is keeping this story in the news.

Actually, Reid will ultimately lose in the end, because sleaze purveyors always lose in the end.

Difference is, Mitt can easily prove Reid wrong if he wants.

Not really. Plenty of sleazy politicos and operatives have long, lucrative careers. Look at how well Karl Rove is doing after his candidate's legacy collapsed.

You have just admitted that there is absolutely nothing wrong or untoward or dishonest with Romney's taxes.

Thank you for finally admitting that.  

Or has he? If there is nothing wrong, why won't Romney show?

When someone says

"Mitt can easily prove Reid wrong"

that means that Romney's taxes are honest and that Reid is the liar.

Therefore, since you know that Romney's taxes are honest, and Reid is the liar, you have no need to see his taxes as you have already admitted there is nothing wrong with his taxes. 

Stop playing dumb, he meant that the onus is on Romney to prove that he payed taxes given his questionable tax history. IF he did nothing wrong, then there's nothing to hide...

How do we know if Reid is a liar? Maybe he is right. There is only one way to find out....

I think by now it's pretty clear that we will never find out.

Also, while we're wasting posts talking about nothing:

Osama bid Laden must be alive because Obama never released the photos. The onus is on the president to prove me wrong.

Are you serious? Yeah, Romney can prove Reid wrong if he's lying, but he hasn't for god knows what reason. Do I doubt that Romney paid absolutely no taxes for 10 years? Yes. Do I think Romney is hiding something? Definitly. Either way, you're looking too much into what I said, and I know you're playing stupid with your assumptions and definitions.

It looks like we might find out more about Reid's financial situation before we know more about Romney's.

Well, Comrade my friend, you are the one who made the statement that "Mitt can easily prove Reid wrong,"that being the case, therefore, if he can prove Reid wrong, then Mitt's taxes would have to be in order, otherwise, if Mitt's taxes can easily prove Reid right, that would mean that Mitt's taxes would not be in order.

Therefore, what you said, is that Mitt's taxes are in order.

That being the case, we have no need to see Mitt's taxes, as they are in order anyway.

You said so yourself.  Don't blame me for what you said.

 

Meh. I'm not going to try since I know it's useless.

And I know that for sure.

I dislike you so much.

Mitt can just as easily prove Reid right. There.

Ah, Jones, you hurt my feelings.  Don't do this to me. 

OK, then, I dislike your obstinate nitpicking at every goddamn word people say.

We're assuming Mitt's a nice guy, but, given the tactics we know he's used (offshore bank accounts and the like), there is reason to suspect that they might not be all right.

You and Conrad have opposing views I see.

Dissension in the AntiRomneyites.

Always good to see.

Well, Conrad's always been a rebel of sorts. Oh that Conrad. Crazy guy.

Why is that?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/harry-reid-mitt-romney-taxes-10-years.php?ref=fpnewsfeed (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/harry-reid-mitt-romney-taxes-10-years.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)

The fierce pushback from Republicans against Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) appears to only be fueling his quest to tear down Mitt Romney over his finances. The Senate majority leader is telegraphing that he has no interest in letting up.

The latest salvo in the intensifying spat comes from Reid’s chief of staff David Krone, who upped the taunts by calling Republicans “a bunch of cowards” and “henchmen for Romney” in an interview with Politico late Sunday night.
“To turn it around, all their childish rants this weekend about calling Reid a ‘liar’ and all that, it just shows you how scared they are that Harry Reid was telling the truth,” Krone told the paper.

...

The tactics mirror a brand of vicious, no-holds-barred campaigning that Republicans have in recent decades bested Democrats at using.

“It’s a boxer’s instinct,” Reid’s spokesman Jentleson told the New York Times. “You find your opponent’s weak spot, and until he finds a defense, you keep pounding it.”

Folks are confused as to how he got rich while in office. The Pubs are digging into it. Stay tuned.

This should be interesting. No one has dared to [Inks] with Reid in decades. I wouldn't want to be the Republican charged with tracking this down unless I'd already had cause to be neutered.

Maybe Reid will send some Vegas bouncers after those charged with doing the dirty work. The guy is such a badass! I completely underestimated him.

Hey, if the Republicans get a hold of some dirt on Reid, they will tear Reid apart.

And I'll take Reid's attitude that he has to everyone else, I could care less how badly they damage him.

If dirt on Reid exists and is obtainable, I would think it would have come out in the Senate race two years ago.  However since Mitt is unwilling (or unable) to discredit the message, the GOP will have to do its best to discredit the messenger.

Reid doesn't seem to be concerned.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79415.html

If Reid's clams are false, wouldn't McCain and Schmidt be the two most credible people to strike them down? They saw Romney's tax returns back in 2008 when he was vetted for VP. What are they saying about all this?

McCain has refused to comment.. why doesn't he just come out and say that Reid is lying or has a BS source?

For all we know, McCain is Reid's source.

I want to add that I find the Republican glee at digging up dirt on Reid to be absolutely idiotic. What a complete and total waste of the GOP's time and resources. Now the focus of the news cycle and blogosphere iis on Reid's financial records, instead of on Obama's economic one. Well played, fellas.

And what does Reid have to lose, even if they find something?

He is likely retiring at the end of this term, which won't be up until 2017.
He's set as majority leader until the end of the year.
He's not closely affiliated to the campaign to make any scandalous discovery a threat to Obama's chances.

Is it really worth it? Why not just ignore Reid?

Instead of all the mock outrage at Reid, why don't you pressure Romney to release his goddamn tax returns. Honestly, its been the standard for every politician to do it for over three decades, and Romney himself made political hay over his previous opponents not doing it.

The real reason Republicans are frothing at the mouth over Reid's statements is because they know that he is saying what a lot of voters could be imagining: Romney won't release because he is hiding something.

And just incase a Republican here tries to argue that they are angry because Reid is making damaging, unverified claims about Romney, I have two words for you: death panels.

Romney has released his return from last year and will release his return from this latest year (like he said he would).  Imagine the hesitation at giving a mob of people, calling you a witch, what they're asking for.  If he gave them 20 returns they would go crazy about him making money and paying the appropriate amount of taxes on it.  "15% capital gains is less than your income rate!!!!!  arghhhh!!!!!  he's a witch!!!" 
Harry Reid and Obama both have illegal land deals in their past so I expect that to come up soon.  Mitt Romney made a lot of money, paid a lot of taxes, and bought his own land.  Harry Reid and BO, not so much.       

No. Manifestations of suspect ethics in business dealings, can be disqualifications for the Highest Office of the Land.  John Corzine is through as a political figure.

McCain released two years of returns. Why didn't you all bust an uproar back then? Not one person cared. No one. This is a made up issue  because Obama has nothing to run on.

What's with this meme that Obama is making up issues because he can't run on the real issues or that he has nothing to run on??

Healthcare reform (upheld in the Supreme Court no less)
Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal
Killing of Osama Bin Laden
Successful end to war in Iraq
Successful operation in Libya

And this may sound crazy, but I really believe that Obama could run solely on the economy and win. Most voters still blame Bush for the bad economy than Obama. He can tout the 4 million jobs created, an unemployment rate that has dropped 2 percentage points from its highs, and remind voters where we were when he was elected and took office and compare that to where we are now- not great but much much better. And better yet, remind voters that Romney's economic plan is nothing new or effective.

Obama is not running from his record on the economy because he doesn't need to. And he's brought up these other attacks not because he needs a smoke screen, it's because Romney is a terrible candidate who has skeletons in his closet. Any candidate would bring these things up in any race because they're effective attacks.

Polling was done on that recently.  More people blame Obama than Bush, but neither is close to a majority. 

For all we know, the reason Romney was not chosen as McCain's running mate is that McCain did not get to see these tax returns at the time.

A) McCain saw 23 years worth of Romney's tax returns.

B) Those behind the McCain's campaign and VP vetting process, and John McCain himself,  have said that there was nothing foul or 'disqualifying' in Romney's tax returns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1680765.html

Ironically, that's one credible source (in that they actually had access to Romney's tax returns) on the record for Romney's case. Contrast that with Reid's anonymous source who, should they even exist, would not have access to Romney's personal tax information and the writing is on the wall.

The more I think about, the more personally disgusting the actions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appear. 

It is outright lying to wildly claim that Romney "did not pay any taxes for ten years" or imply that Romney was dishonest in his tax filings. 

Romney may have had a low tax rate based on his capital gains/retirement accounts.  But Reid is implying a more sinister accusation that Romney is cheating the US government and a tax dodger. 

It is just personally disgusting for the Senate leader to lie without any proof that another US Citizen is purposely evading taxes.  It doesn't matter if you are accusing your neighbor, your boss, or a presidential candidate about tax evasion without any solid proof. 

Harry Reid's statements are worst than gutter politics because he is claiming the IRS is not doing its job, and that Romney did not pay his required american taxes. 

I think that there will be an Ethics Violation for Harry Reid, but I don't think he cares at this point in his life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-harry-reids-claim-about-mitt-romneys-taxes/2012/08/06/c31a1402-e007-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

Once again this isn't about Harry Reid. And also it is quite possible that Romney could have paid less than he did in 2011 through legal means. The fact that Romney continues to refuse to reveal the returns opens him to the charge that there is something there that isn't in his 2010/11 returns, otherwise why not reveal? He is already being hit for the techniques he used to lower his taxes in those years so if it is more of the same then all he can do is benefit by getting rid of the 'what is he hiding?' attack.

It is worth noting that Romney has a history with skating on the edge (and going over the line) with the IRS, at least on the business side. Here is an article from Bloomberg earlier this year

and there is much more at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/romney-as-auditing-chairman-saw-marriott-son-of-boss-tax-shelter-defy-irs.html

In the words of Christine Keeler, "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

Seriously, do you think McCain and Schmidt have an incentive to say anything but "they checked out just fine," whether it's true or not?

The tax code in its application in some of these complex tax avoidance transactions, has a grey zone. Just what constitutes a sufficient level of economic substance is not as exact as the speed of light, and sometimes generates litigation that can generate boatloads of attorneys fees. That is one reason why we think the Tax Code is far superior to the Bible. It's a work of art, and we love it.

I probably have billed about a fifth of my lifetime legal fees over tax code disputes, one involving gold swaps done in a Singapore foreign subsidiary, where the subsidiary was enjoying a 10 year tax free holiday in Singapore to induce the oil service firm to build their plant there, and thus was awash in cash (about 100 million or so), which gold swaps were designed to convert interest to something that was not Subpart F income so it would not be subject to tax in the US (we won that one, which caused the Tax Code to be amended to shut it down after the IRS lost). Another involved capital gain recognition or the lack thereof when real estate was taken out of subchapter S corp, and on that one we won too, causing the IRS to drop its national plan to go after that particular kind of transaction (that involved getting 30 year old briefs out of an IRS storage facility in the middle of a mountain in West Virginia, which that porker Sen Robert Byrd had caused to be put there of course (thank God the records had not yet been destroyed, because the attorney handling the matter unfortunately had been dead for about 15 years, and unavailable to hit up for the docs).  We needed the briefs because  the tax court opinion had an inadequate statement of facts - it turned out the facts made the case a "spotted horse," working for us, and agains the IRS, so the IRS was just totally F'ed, and had to fold).

So there is nothing dishonorable about this. It's as American as apple pie. And aren't you jealous that I get to deal with such fascinating stuff?  :P

Romney had be prodded hard in the primaries to release the one year he has released and promise to release his 2011 return when it is finished.  (That the return isn't done yet should be an obvious sign that the tax code needs simplifying, but I digress.)  Also Mitt is vulnerable because of the example of his father George, who released twelve years when he ran for President.

Considering the alleged personal animosity between Romney and McCain, I don't see the motivation for McCain to flat deny this. If there was something there, McCain would 'no comment'. Instead, he insists that Palin was simply a better choice at the time; which I think is intended as a slight - but that I can't be sure of.

Again this is the court of public opinion, so i think Romney losing a tax fight in court and having what the company was doing be called “fictitious,” “artificial,” “spectral,” an “illusion” and a “scheme” is not insignificant and cant be waved off. But my point is that Romney is clearly very very aggressive in getting tax breaks.

Here is another report from the LATimes just yesterday about how the Romney's fought for every penny on their property taxes:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-property-tax-20120806,0,4428951,full.story


Again I doubt Romney has done anything illegal. But what this all does is continue to paint him as an ultra-rich guy who is using the system to fullest to avoid taxes. If he wants to humanize himself and make himself relatable to Mr. and Mrs. taxpaying middle class American, all of this stuff doesn't help and most likely is why he is under water in terms of personal ratings.

Mandy Rice-Davies, actually. But it was in the trial. And it's a great quote.

I won't subject you to my anecdotes about property tax appeals. God, I do love those - particularly those with lots of numbers here, there and everywhere, such as commercial properties, on land lease or something, so you get to fight about discount rates and the like. It's wonderful!  

Anyhoo, mansions are tough to value, because they tend to be sui generis, with few or no comps, and the market for them is so thin to boot. Plus if Mittens built the house, he may well have more dough into it, than it is worth. And maybe he indeed just overpaid for it. That can happen. Heck zillow thinks I underpaid for the property below. My purchase is represented by the dollar sign in the green circle.

()

How am I doing so far in trying to get Mittens' butt out of the wringer here? :P

I am not arguing that Romney did anything that is illegal or unethical, it is just that his tax activities highlight his ultra-wealth and his working of the system to get himself a better deal.

Do you think this makes middle class Americans like him more?

Oh it may hurt him a tad. But working the system within the law is what America is all about. I don't think most Americans would hold that against him. That is what they would do if they were in his position - almost all of them. And I don't think most are opebo types, who dislike people (at least on a political level) simply because they are rich. They kind of admire rich people, at least those who earned their dough legally.

This.

Romney pays the bare minimum amount of taxes that the government will allow him. I don't know a single person who doesn't use the tax code to get the lowest possible rate. Tax Preparation is an industry of its own because of the universal desire to ensure the lowest possible tax rate.

Furthermore, if we are admitting that there is no evidence of wrong doing in Mitt Romney's tax filings, why do we still need to see them? If you want Romney's returns so that you can make attack ad out of Romney's perfectly legal tax rate, then you aren't alone; but it shouldn't come as much of a shock that Team Romney isn't playing ball.

This is the kind of thing I always wish actual politicians would say. Because it would make for hilarious adverts.

Better than he is.  He seems content to just let it be wrung.

The problem comes in October when he has to go on the national stage and explain why people like him should be given more tax cuts while spending on medicare and social security is cut. Of course he won't say that will he? Maybe just spout out some platitudes about how government sucks and perhaps attack welfare queens.

Mittens denies that he wants to decrease taxes on the rich beyond preserving the Bush tax cuts. I still need to read that study that TheDeadFlagBlues linked for me that I printed out (20 pages), that the Dems are having orgasms over. It seems less about Mittens' plan, than that the Mittens numbers are simply not possible. It should be a fun read to see if it has any little assumptions in it that load the dice.

I still think there is likely some truth to this.  If Romney's missing tax returns merely showed Romney paying as little in taxes as the one year he released, he would have played victim and release them.  Why didn't he?

Frankly, he has a history from ten years ago of doing a fairly good job of playing the victim without releasing them.

Obvious and desperate attempt to distract and divert attention away from the success of picking Ryan.

The tax returns issue is old news. Obama 2012 has morphed into this weird campaign with only one purpose: Getting Romney to release his tax returns. No wonder people are loving the Ryan selection. It shows Romney is about ideas and results, not distractions. Hopefully somebody in the Obama IRS will simply leak Romney's tax returns, creating a whole host of problems for Obama and Co.

No one who is really rich made their dough ethically, and probably not legally. 

I think you're a little off. Sure, a large portion of Americans are fine with gaming the system - if everyone has the same opportunity. And while there's also respect for the wealthy self-made man, there is little for those perceived, rightly or wrongly, to have make their money by cheating or exploiting others. Governor Romney's problem isn't just that he's wealthy,  it's that his success comes across as the product of privilege, entitlement, and elitism.  He needs to change that perception, not exacerbate it by refusing to release his taxes.

Obvious and desperate attempt to distract and divert attention away from the disappointingly modest results of picking Ryan.

The tax returns issue has no reason to go away. Romney 2012 has morphed into this weird campaign with only one purpose: Distracting people from Romney's refusal to release tax returns for an extended period of time like every single other presidential candidate in recent history has had no mysterious problems with doing. No wonder people are lukewarm and retrenching in their preexisting opinions regarding the Ryan selection. It shows Romney is about ideological pandering and unearned reputations for seriousness, not respect for the electorate. Hopefully somebody in the Obama IRS will simply leak Romney's tax returns, creating a whole host of problems for Romney and Co.

This is a joke right?

Seems Romney has answered the charge regarding the last ten years. The ball is now back in Reid's court. I would behoove Reid to now specify which years, of any, in the last ten years to which he was referring. Then, we could know for certain whom the liar is.

Somehow, I don't think Reid will. Everyone can draw their own conclusions about whom the liar is.

Ball is still in Romney's court.  Romney has a record of lying about his taxes. Just saying he paid taxes while offering zero proof doesn't get him off the hook.  By the standards spelled out by Romney's own father, Obama has disclosed sufficient information about his personal finances, Romney has not.

I can't wait until the dossier of 23 years of tax returns (1984-2007), provided to the McCain vetting team, is released

It's odd that if there was nothing politically problematic that they haven't leaked by now since there are so many people who have them.

Ryan wants to eliminate capital gains taxes, which would make Romney's taxes basically 0%. Of course 13% was already outrageously low.

OK Mr. Sleaze Reid, Romney and Ann have given definitive answers to your libelous charges.

Now put up or shut up you low life scum. 

Neither can the rest of us.

Nor, does Reid citing an unnamed "source" get him off the hook for lying. My point is that if Reid is telling the truth he has the resource of naming the specific year Romney paid no taxes and lied about it. Reid's failure to step forward and specify which years Romney allegedly paid no tax indicates that Reid in fact is the person lying.

As expected, Ryan didn't make this issue go away.

Having Romney telling the world that he payed a whole 13% tax rate (without proof) is not a good thing for him. It jut reminds people he is a uber rich guy who benefits from tax loopholes.

Yeah, because even if Romney releases the dossier, Reid will just turn around and say, "HE DIDN'T PAY TAXES FROM 1973-1983!" And how the hell is Romney going to be able to dig back through his files and find tax returns that are over three decades old?

Reid needs to specify the years or shut the [Inks] up. No wonder so many people do not want to run for president anymore.

He did specify that it was during the period Romney was working for Bain, which even if Mitt had released the twelve years his father had wouldn't be covered.

I believe the Mormon Church will excommunicate members involved in cases of libel, which is what Reid has committed.

If it's going to excommunicate politicians for saying untrue things about other people, they'll need to kick Romney out as well.

Does the LDS hold it's own equivalent trials to make findings of fact that all the elements of libel had been proved by a preponderance of the evidence?  What are the rules of evidence?  I do know they hold excommunication trials, and a lady who said things with which the Church disagreed in her books was so excommunicated, but it was more in the nature of a star chamber proceeding actually. They had all made up their minds in advance, and were just going through the motions. In any event, it strikes me as odd that the LDS would get involved in a civil matter like this. They really can't be that dumb can they?  You are LDS right Winfield? If not, let me know, and I will get off your back on this.

I do not discuss personal matters on public forums.

I have made that clear in the past.

Personal matters, public forums, not a good mix.

For once, something I can agree on with you.

Probably most politicians would have to go, but Romney is some particularly low hanging fruit.

Interesting how every Democrat here will acknowledge that Reid is probably at least incorrect, but no Republican will acknowledge that something at least seems slightly suspicious about Romney's steadfast refusal to do something every presidential candidate has automatically done for 50+ years.

There is nothing in the least even slightly suspicious about Romney's steadfast refusal to release these tax files.

The Democrats are on a fishing expedition, just one of many ploys, the major one, they have used to detract from Obama's obvious inability to turn around the economy.

If the Democrats ever got their hands on these tax files, which they never will, they would clearly see that Romney has absolutely paid all his taxes to the fullest extent reuired by law, and they would proceed going over them with a fine tooth comb to try and find anything they could in them to twist and turn out of all proportion in an effort to attack Romney with.

The Democrats are playing a very underhanded game, and they are not really interested in Romney's tax returns at all.  They are ony interested in playing politics with this issue.

I say, let the Democrats go kicking and screaming about these taxes all they want, by using twit fall guys like sleaze Reid.  The people will soon tire of the game they are playing.  The people want to hear about job creation and are interested in how much tax they will be paying, not how much Romney paid.

No presidential candidate has ever released 30+ years of tax returns, which is what would be necessary to cover the duration of Romney's association with Bain.

Why didn't Obama release his birth certificate in 2008?

You seriously are going Birther on us?

But every Presidential candidate has released more than 2 years of returns. And even those two years are incomplete. McCain released 2 years during his campaign, but he had release returns every time he ran for re-election to the senate since 1986. Kerry did the same thing with his returns. And these were two extremely wealthy men.

He did, but it wasn't enough for Trump and all you crazy people. I don't remember anyone bugging Kerry for his birth certificate or McCain. Nobody bothered Bush about his birth certificate 3 years into his presidency.

Ironically it's McCain and Romney's father who had the serious issues with where they were born.

I found this on Wikipedia.

McCain was born in 1936, which means that when he was born he was not a US citizen. Sure, the following year he was retroactively given US citizenship, but it sounds like to me he was ineligible to become President.

There you have it folks. One of the major party nominees for President in 2008 was ineligible to become President because of his birthplace. The irony is incredible.

Absolutely not. My point is that Obama did not release his official birth certificate until 2011. Your reasoning on Romney is completely in line with the "Birther" reasoning in 2008 (i.e., "he won't release it so he must be hiding something!"). They claimed Obama was hiding something when he was not. The same applies to Romney and his tax returns. Romney has not broken the law, but he is wealthy and does not want to feed the narrative that he is "out-of-touch" wealthy. That is why they have yet to release the returns. It is nothing nefarious.

Obama released this birth certificate in June 2008. Funny how the birthers ignored the problem of McCain being born in the Canal Zone before that 1937 law.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg

What was the big hoopla at the dinner before the assassination of Bin Laden? As I recall, Obama never released his official "long-form" birth certificate until 2011. I may be recalling incorrectly.

I never bought into the "Birther" arguments, but it is interesting that you have adopted the same reasoning as them with regards to Romney's tax returns. I am consistent when it comes to Romney's tax returns and Obama's "long-form" birth certificate.

Maybe President Obama will win in 2012 because Mitt Romney failed 1040!

If he had to amend returns to recognize income hidden away in foreign accounts, then he would show that he has played in accordance with the idea that rules are for fools until one gets caught -- after getting an amnesty.

Well you were the guy who brought up what you think the LDS does. I was wondering what your expertise about the matter was.

Except that there is no problem?  At all?  Because McCain has citizenship via jus sanguinis from birth, just like George Romney, just like every other child of American citizens born outside the United States?

You are such a total hack sometimes.

Obama is now campaigning on the claim that Ryan's plan would lower Romney's tax rate even further, to something shy of 1%. Is that possible?

If his plan involves eliminating taxes on capital gains (I think he wanted that just for $250k and under) then yeah.

Even back in the primary, Newt was saying under his (Newt's) tax plan (no capital gains taxes) Romney would pay virtually no federal income taxes because most of his income is classified as capital gains.

Yes there is.  When a candidate refuses to participate in standard procedure, even when members of his own party urge him to, it is only natural to assume he must have a reason not to.

Even though you won't admit it, you agree with me on this indisputable point.

I don't see anything about limiting it to $250k here.


http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8514

Yeah opps, I was referring to Romney's plan: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax


Newt even attacked him for it for 'engaging in class warfare' (why only no capital gains taxes for $200k/250k and under? he asked). Wouldn't be surprised if Romney is backing the House GOP plan now though.

Umm, did you read my other post? The 1937 law fixed the citizenship issue, but that still means McCain wasn't a citizen at birth.

The Ryan plan would wipe out capital gains taxes almost completely.  Nearly the entirety of Romney's income is capital gains.  Romney would still be taxed on sales of his book, which is where the 1% tax he does still pay under the Ryan plan comes from.