Mitt Romney: 'I Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent' In Taxes

From an undecided and independent voter:
- One's opponent does not decide what is the correct number of tax returns to release. If he released 10 years, and there was nothing there, they would obviously ask for more.
- By taking a stand on the above, Romney has cast doubt on the contents of his tax returns, legitimizing the issue and making himself look bad.
- Harry Reid has come out the loser in his exchange with the Romney camp. When even Jon Stewart calls you "terrible" and your argument "bullsh*t", you're made a serious error.

Final analysis: There may be something to it, but without evidence the argument is not compelling enough to swing a swing voter. It's just bait for partisan back-and-forth.

 

So Romney's a leftist now? Oh the incoherency of conservatives.

 

I didn't say he was lying. I asked him a question. Maybe you should learn how to comprehend simple English before making such a fool out of yourself. Can you defend his claims? Or are you just blindly defending him because of your liberal bias?

 

How does that prove he isn't talking about his federal income taxes? You must think Romney thinks like a two faced liberal where they disguise what they are really talking about. Paranoia in the liberal camps runs strong! Now liberals think if you don't completely spell out what you are talking about that you must be talking about something completely different. Figures.

 

Romney's attempt to defuse this issues is hilariously inept. It just raises more questions, like: "Prove it, rich boy!"

 

Translation: I have no evidence whatsoever. NONE.

 

You're right. Romney should just shut up about it. Reid and his spokesidiot are fishing. The proper response is to talk about the real issues and not this red herring.

 

Then, stop being a progressive. This isn't rocket science.


_

 

This was a Democrat presidential candidate. Romney is not worth anywhere near as much as the Kerry's are. But, progressives supported John Kerry. The whining about Romney is extremely hypocritical for the Lefties.

_

 

Yes, those of us that are intelligent enough have two cads, and plenty of cash. Too bad there are those not smart enough to figure it out. Obama's boy Jeff Immelt is one of those highly intelligent ones, he paid zero in taxes. It is really too bad you liberals struggle so, we honestly have the greatest country on the planet, and you haven't figured it out yet.

 

Yes I'm sure you were all over John Kerry when he ran.

Another phony liberal post.

 

Really pathetic and weak of liberals to not hold their own to the same standards.

Heinz is the life estate beneficiary or outright beneficiary of her husband's trusts, making her either extremely wealthy in her own name or powerful as a trustee of Heinz family wealth.[citation needed] Kerry is wealthy in his own right, though not to the same degree, since he became a trust fund beneficiary of his mother's and Forbes family trusts. Kerry and Heinz signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate.
Heinz has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth between $750 million and $1.2 billion. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, Kerry and Heinz paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%.
Heinz and Kerry live an affluent life. They own a six-floor, $7 million townhome in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood, a $9 million ocean-front home on Nantucket, a $5 million ski retreat in Idaho, a $4 million estate in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania, near the Heinz family's home base of Pittsburgh, and a $5 million home in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C.[citation needed]

 

It will NEVER be enough for these rotten, backstabbing Libocrats! Mitt can reveal the taxes taken out of his very first paycheck and it STILL won't be enough! These hateful sons-of-(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es have no sense of honor or fairness in any of them -- and especially not in lying bastards like Harry Reid! I'd give anything if Mitt would sue that rotten, lying bastard for slander and libel and force him in a court of law to back up his accusations or pay millions to Romney for telling lies about him....

The only aim and purpose the Democrats have in any of this witchhunt treachery is to keep their asskissers in the liberal media focused on ANYTHING but Obama's sickening performance as "president". He's done NOTHING but go to sleep while Ben "Bailout" Bernanke and his insiders in the banking cartels and the stock market have run the National Debt up over 51% to fund this fraud "recovery" we've had growing like malignant cancer all during his "presidency" (and, yes, it started with Idiot Bush!). None of these hyperlibs want the voters to think about that, so these criminal liberal pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) spend every day and night trying to drag Mitt and Paul through a maze of lies. Maybe we're going to have another civil war after all....

 

No, they don't.

 

I don't recall Heinz running for President.

 

So Mrs Romney can claim the same rights? Or is this another set of rules where one side gets different treatment from the other.

 

Until Mittens releases those tax returns, his claims are meaningless.

All we know is he paid around 14% in 2010 only on the income that wasn't tax sheltered. He has somewhere between 25 and 100 million in IRAs, where income is tax-free. With strict annual contribution limits, one wonders how he pulled that off.

Romney's response might hint about what is in previous returns. Since most of his income is earned passively, through investments, after down years in the stock market (2008, for example), he may have had no earnings and paid almost no taxes. In that case, maybe he paid a nominal amount on a nominal amount of income, so his 13% claim could be correct while claims that he paid no virtually taxes in some prior years would be essentially correct as well. Recall again that much of his income is tax-sheltered.

Under Ryan's plan, Romney would have paid less than 1%.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ercent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/

No wonder he picked Ryan! And to all Republican dupes out there, when someone doesn't pay their share, it means you have to fork over the difference one way or the other.

 

But she was married to someone who was, and her finances were a primary funding source for their lifestyle. As an independent, undecided voter I believe the comparison to be valid. I also think it makes Democrats hypocritical on the candidate wealth issue.

I'd also like to know why Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks it's okay to criticize Mitt Romney's undisclosed tax returns while not disclosing 10 years of her own returns. She's not running for president, but she is the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and a Congresswoman, and fair is fair.

 

Romney looks even more mendacious now than he did before. If he's going to make claims about what's in his returns, he better be able to pony up.

But of course he can't: the returns demonstrate fraud.

 

I don't recall Romney's wife either, but that didn't stop liberal hateful pukes from attacking her horse riding. It's all about being hateful to liberals, because you never heard one single comment from conservatives about Kerry's tax returns or how much he made. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pathetic puke hypocrites.

 

More lying blather from joaquin as usual.

 

More lying blather from joaquin as usual.

 

You mean how Kerry was a golddigger? I think Michael K of Dlisted did, in fact, call him out for not messing with no broke....

 

Actually, she was the golddigger. The Kerry's keep their money separate with a prenup. He has his own wealth but not even close to hers, but I say, whatever, good for them. They both got their money the old fashion way, they married into it.

 

Personally, I loved Kerry's skiing outfits. Priceless.