Reid: Bain Investor Told Me That Mitt Romney 'Didn't Pay Any Taxes For 10 Years'

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is the worst thread on the forum.

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

[Likely Voter]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reid knows how to play the game.

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."

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

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.

[Likely Voter]

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.

[stegosaurus]

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.

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...

[Brittain33]

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.

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

[stegosaurus]

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.

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.

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"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Brittain33]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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!

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

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.

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

Of course that's only a principle in a court of law.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Of course that's only a principle in a court of law.

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

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

[Likely Voter]

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.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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

It's not similar at all...

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.”

[Lincoln Republican]

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 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!

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.     

[Lief 🗽]

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.

[Lincoln Republican]

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.