Harry Reid: "Bain source says Romney paid no taxes for 10 years"

[fskimospy]

How does Reid demonstrate that it's true?

This is why it's such a bad idea for Romney not to release his tax returns. It's dirty politics, but if I were the Democrats I would be starting rumors left and right about various awful things that they 'heard' were in them. Once again, the only rational reason for Romney to be fighting this so hard is that there really are things in there that would be very damaging to him if they were to come out.

While I find it highly unlikely that Romney paid zero in taxes over 10 years, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to find several years in there where he perhaps paid none, or at least paid an extraordinarily low rate. Mitt Romney is defined as a politician by his almost complete lack of principles. Would anyone be that shocked to find that translated over to his personal finances as well?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is why it's such a bad idea for Romney not to release his tax returns. It's dirty politics, but if I were the Democrats I would be starting rumors left and right about various awful things that they 'heard' were in them. Once again, the only rational reason for Romney to be fighting this so hard is that there really are things in there that would be very damaging to him if they were to come out.

While I find it highly unlikely that Romney paid zero in taxes over 10 years, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to find several years in there where he perhaps paid none, or at least paid an extraordinarily low rate. Mitt Romney is defined as a politician by his almost complete lack of principles. Would anyone be that shocked to find that translated over to his personal finances as well?

I would be very surprised if he didn't pay a low rate. Anyone I can think of in a comparable position would be. Should he release his tax information? I think he should, but then again I think it would have been best if Obama had diffused the Birther nonsense. I expect that he thinks he will get hammered for doing what George Soros and the Kennedys did, which is take advantage of tax shelters. It would be hard to reasonably argue otherwise. Well, that is indeed the nature of campaign politics and how supporters view the world. Still, it's somewhat irksome to me to see the Birther movement anew under a different guise, and Reid being a part of it.

 

[blankslate]

It's dirty politics, but if I were the Democrats I would be starting rumors left and right about various awful things that they 'heard' were in them.

Well they could always start such speculation with the preface "Some say...."

As in "Some people say, that Governor Romney paid zero taxes for some of the years he worked at Bain, what an elitist snob... two degrees from Harvard makes you too good to pay taxes?"

That "some people say" is enough evidence for some people...

 

[monovillage]

Not the same at all.

One is easily verifiable with a paper trail, the other is a slanderous statement against someone's views and associations.

Anyone who isn't completely brainwashed knows Romney is hiding his tax reports for a reason.

Is that your libertarian side or your conservative side? What a whiny little Democrat shill you are.

 

[BoberFett]

It's good to have techs back, making Democrats look terrible.

 

[fskimospy]

I would be very surprised if he didn't pay a low rate. Anyone I can think of in a comparable position would be. Should he release his tax information? I think he should, but then again I think it would have been best if Obama had diffused the Birther nonsense. I expect that he thinks he will get hammered for doing what George Soros and the Kennedys did, which is take advantage of tax shelters. It would be hard to reasonably argue otherwise. Well, that is indeed the nature of campaign politics and how supporters view the world. Still, it's somewhat irksome to me to see the Birther movement anew under a different guise, and Reid being a part of it.

There is simply no comparison between the two. None.

Birther conspiracies were always fringe lunatic theories that directly contradicted publicly available and validated evidence to the contrary. What people forget is just how much Obama did to defuse it. First he released his birth certificate in June of 2008. Then they had the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaiian governor personally vouch for its accuracy. Then it was released to the media and fact checking sites for accuracy. That is far and above what is required by any US authority that I am aware of. The birther nonsense wasn't defused because birthers are insane.

Unlike Obama who repeatedly released authoritative information about his birth, Mitt Romney's trouble is speculation based on a candidate's suspicious refusal to release information. Sure both the birther issue and the tax issue may be exploited by cynical politicians for political gain, but Romney's is the result of a personal choice he has made to hide what is likely damaging information about his financial past.

 

[thraashman]

I would be very surprised if he didn't pay a low rate. Anyone I can think of in a comparable position would be. Should he release his tax information? I think he should, but then again I think it would have been best if Obama had diffused the Birther nonsense. I expect that he thinks he will get hammered for doing what George Soros and the Kennedys did, which is take advantage of tax shelters. It would be hard to reasonably argue otherwise. Well, that is indeed the nature of campaign politics and how supporters view the world. Still, it's somewhat irksome to me to see the Birther movement anew under a different guise, and Reid being a part of it.

The problem with the birther nonsense is that Obama did release his birth certificate years ago. The version he released was the fully legal and valid version that is given to any person upon request of their birth certificate from Hawaii. Then people wanted the "long form" birth certificate. The problem with that is that Obama had to request the state of Hawaii to break their own laws in order to provide it. And people STILL claim it to be fake.

Virtually every candidate for decades has released a large number of years of tax returns. One of the most likely reasons for not releasing his returns is the 2009 amnesty for tax evading Swiss bank accounts the US offered. If he got amnesty then you'd see he paid no taxes on that money in Swiss accounts for years, and even though he doesn't have to pay those taxes and can't be held criminally liable, he was tax evading but given amnesty.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html

 

[OrByte]

Dirty politics indeed.

Both parties have been doing it to each other forever.

Can't wait to see Romney's tactic. I hope he releases his tax returns with heavy redactions!

edit: with stuff like Reid's comments, nonpartisan studies claiming Romney's tax plan favors the wealthy, and articles like the above Slate piece, the tax issue isn't going to go away.

 

[techs]

Since Obama hasn't released his school records Occam's Razor tells you he was a poor student? He didn't release an official birth certificate for a long time. Did that tell you he was born in Kenya?

Uh, no.
Releasing tax returns is something most candidates for the Presidency have done for 50 years.

 

[Exterous]

Come on.... who you trying to kid? Any such legislative proposal would be aborted by the Republicans...

Proposing something that they know won't pass is like a sport to our politicians these days (See Obamacare and Letting Tax cuts expire)

 

[jackschmittusa]

If Romney paid little or no taxes for several years, he would look like a greedy asshole because he currently says that the rich need more tax relief.

It would also finally put to rest the ridiculous notion that the "job creator class" is so hampered by high taxes that it inhibits its ability to create jobs.

Romney could single-handedly cut off a large plank of the Republican platform, with him on it.

 

[cubby1223]

if I were the Democrats I would be starting rumors left and right about various awful things that they 'heard' were in them.

(regarding birthers) There is simply no comparison between the two. None.

hmmm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is simply no comparison between the two. None.

Birther conspiracies were always fringe lunatic theories that directly contradicted publicly available and validated evidence to the contrary. What people forget is just how much Obama did to defuse it. First he released his birth certificate in June of 2008. Then they had the Hawaii Department of Health and the Hawaiian governor personally vouch for its accuracy. Then it was released to the media and fact checking sites for accuracy. That is far and above what is required by any US authority that I am aware of. The birther nonsense wasn't defused because birthers are insane.

Unlike Obama who repeatedly released authoritative information about his birth, Mitt Romney's trouble is speculation based on a candidate's suspicious refusal to release information. Sure both the birther issue and the tax issue may be exploited by cynical politicians for political gain, but Romney's is the result of a personal choice he has made to hide what is likely damaging information about his financial past.

I see both as started for political reasons based on innuendo and supposition. If you approve of that then that's your business.

 

[fskimospy]

hmmm

I'm not sure what the confusion is? Both are good politics for cynical people, but the two issues themselves are nothing alike. Wondering what's in someone's tax returns is a reasonable thing to wonder about. Wondering where someone was born after you get an official copy of their birth certificate endorsed by the governor of that state is insanity.

 

[cubby1223]

Should he release his tax information? I think he should, but then again I think it would have been best if Obama had diffused the Birther nonsense.

Except that (1) releasing tax information does not stop "the left" from making more unfounded accusations. And (2) releasing the birth certificate does not stop the birthers from making more unfounded accusations.

There is no "victory" to be had for giving in to these kinds of demands. All it does is further embolden the opposition. Obama was better off not addressing the birthers, just like Romney is better off not addressing the "progressives", even if there is zero to hide.

 

[fskimospy]

I see both as started for political reasons based on innuendo and supposition. If you approve of that then that's your business.

As I said to cubby one is based on a reasonable suspicion and one was based in lunacy. Are you attempting to argue that Romney's fiscal history is not relevant when he is running his campaign on his history of financial success? I would hope not. Just because both issues can be exploited by political operatives doesn't make them the same. One is a legitimate issue and the other is not.

As for dirty games being played in politics, who cares? They aren't ever going to go away so whether or not someone supports them is basically irrelevant. The measure of a good dirty trick is the ability to slime up your opponent well without going so far overboard as to make voters disgusted with you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Uh, no.
Releasing tax returns is something most candidates for the Presidency have done for 50 years.

So because he hasn't provides a direct causal link to Reid's statement being indisputable? I've already said that I think that Romney should release his tax statements and that like other people in his income bracket irrespective of party affiliation pays a lower rate than most other people.

My point was and is that for Reid to make a statement which he cannot back up indicates that Romney is perceived as a greater threat than I realized. Others are seizing on this as not being anything other than an equivalent of proof of something that anyone with a basic knowledge of taxes ought to know.

It's a tempest in an imaginary teapot.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261368

More proof Romney isn't into paying taxes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As I said to cubby one is based on a reasonable suspicion and one was based in lunacy. Are you attempting to argue that Romney's fiscal history is not relevant when he is running his campaign on his history of financial success? I would hope not. Just because both issues can be exploited by political operatives doesn't make them the same. One is a legitimate issue and the other is not.

As for dirty games being played in politics, who cares? They aren't ever going to go away so whether or not someone supports them is basically irrelevant. The measure of a good dirty trick is the ability to slime up your opponent well without going so far overboard as to make voters disgusted with you.

I'm objecting on the principle that dirty politics is a reality, but so are a great many things. That does not mean I am obligated to approve of any of them. As far as Romney goes, any of his dealings are fair game. Based on an unsubstantiated claim by Reid, which is what the OP is using? No.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm not sure what the confusion is? Both are good politics for cynical people, but the two issues themselves are nothing alike. Wondering what's in someone's tax returns is a reasonable thing to wonder about. Wondering where someone was born after you get an official copy of their birth certificate endorsed by the governor of that state is insanity.

Ask yourself this - do you see any scenario where you vote for Romney if he releases his tax documents?

Then ask yourself this - what influenced your decision to be concerned of this topic?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm objecting on the principle that dirty politics is a reality, but so are a great many things. That does not mean I am obligated to approve of any of them. As far as Romney goes, any of his dealings are fair game. Based on an unsubstantiated claim by Reid, which is what the OP is using? No.

I agree actually. My argument was from a tactical perspective, not a right/wrong perspective. There's little doubt in my mind that Reid knows exactly what he's doing and I find it quite likely he will find other people to cast similar aspersions in the near future.

Mitt Romney has made a personal choice to hide his past from people while still running on it. I find that to be pretty scummy. Reid's attack on it is also pretty scummy, but hardly unexpected.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261368

More proof Romney isn't into paying taxes.

Does it prove that Reid got the call and does the innuendo constitute objective truth?

 

[fskimospy]

Ask yourself this - do you see any scenario where you vote for Romney if he releases his tax documents?

Then ask yourself this - what influenced your decision to be concerned of this topic?

This tac has been tried before, it's no better now.

I personally cannot imagine any circumstance in which I would vote for Romney. What am I, nuts? The argument that you are trying to make however is that the legitimacy of asking Romney about his tax returns is somehow related to the voting position of the person asking for them. It isn't.

Either the issue is legitimate or it isn't. If you would like to put forth an argument that the fiscal history of someone basing his campaign in large part off of his fiscal history is somehow not a legitimate topic, please make that argument.

 

[sunzt]

Romney dug himself into this hole, by not living up to his father's standards with the tax history.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Romney dug himself into this hole, by not living up to his father's standards with the tax history.

A common problem with the wealthy in this country now.