Brother Harry Reid Vs. Brother Mitt Romney

[thesometimesaint]

Romney pulled the same stunt in 1994, 2002, and now in 2012.

The Obamas’ reported a total of $245,075, or 14.2% of their adjusted gross income, in charitable contributions.

Mr. Romney is under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. However it is highly hypocritical for him to demand that others do what he refuses to do.

[Sleeper Cell]

Why won't Romney release the returns? Here are some possibilities:

1. He doesn’t believe in transparency, accountability, avoiding the appearance of impropriety or doing things beyond the legal minimum.
   
2. The returns would show that he hasn’t been a full tithe payer.
   
3. The returns would show that his effective tax rate has been very low. At best, this would be a dramatic illustration that Obama is right and the rich aren’t paying their fair share.
   

In any case, Romney has asserted that we don’t need to see his tax returns in order to evaluate his candidacy, but he won’t prove it by releasing the returns. Given that Romney is the one who was secretive first, I can hardly blame Reid for being secretive about his sources.

The returns that he has released already show that his effective tax rate has been very low. They have already been used as a “dramatic illustration” that the rich aren’t paying their “fair share:”

Here is another possibility. The more returns you release, the easier it is for your enemies to find something perfectly innocent and ethical that can, with a little creative ingenuity, be made to look bad. The same would apply when the occasional right winger demands that the current president release his college transcripts and copies of everything he wrote as a student.

Incidentally, there is a very big difference between wanting to keep one’s private affairs private and being secretive about your sources when making an unsubstantiated allegation intended to damage someone’s reputation. Not only is Reid‘s allegation hearsay, it is anonymous hearsay.

But why go on? If Reid thinks that presidential candidates should release 10 years of tax returns, why hasn’t he introduced legislation requiring them to do so? For that matter, why stop at presidential candidates. Why not the same for cabinet officers and senators?

After all, what have they got to hide?

[ERayR]

He’s not being transparent on this issue--not at all. He is making the claim that there is nothing to see in the undisclosed tax returns, but he refuses to prove it. That is certainly his prerogative--there is no law that he needs to meet this standard of transparency. Just note that Reid isn’t the only one who isn’t putting up.

The accusation was from Harry Reid. It is his to prove.

[Anijen]

Romney pulled the same stunt in 1994, 2002, and now in 2012.

The Obamas’ reported a total of $245,075, or 14.2% of their adjusted gross income, in charitable contributions.

Mr. Romney is under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. However it is highly hypocritical for him to demand that others do what he refuses to do.

CFR on those sources please.

[thesometimesaint]

Sure.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/04/maddow-romney-demanded-his-political-opponents-tax-returns-in-2002/

http://brianekoenig.com/2011/04/obama-and-biden-2010-tax-returns-and-charitable-contributions/

US Constitution. See first source

[Darren10]

I use every legal deduction I can to keep as much of my hard earned money as I can. I would expect any good businessman to do the same. If he didn't he wouldn't be a good businessman.

What would be interesting is seeing the charitable contributions of Romney compared to Reid or Obama.

I hope he doesn't release his returns on principle. This is just a diversion from the real issues and Reid knows it.

First and foremost, good for you, Deborah, for using your smarts to keep your own money. It's pathetically sad that you/we have to do so but it is what it is, I guess. And you are dead on correct as for Romney being as succesful as he has been based in part for his ability to keep his own money. Lastly, I'm sure Romney's donations dwarfs Harry Reid's donations.

[Darren10]

Romney pulled the same stunt in 1994, 2002, and now in 2012.

The Obamas’ reported a total of $245,075, or 14.2% of their adjusted gross income, in charitable contributions.

Mr. Romney is under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. However it is highly hypocritical for him to demand that others do what he refuses to do.

Lol. Thanks for the humor. More on that when I can get off this IPad and on to the PC.

[Darren10]

He’s not being transparent on this issue--not at all. He is making the claim that there is nothing to see in the undisclosed tax returns, but he refuses to prove it. That is certainly his prerogative--there is no law that he needs to meet this standard of transparency. Just note that Reid isn’t the only one who isn’t putting up.

That's hardly the case, sir. Brother Romney *has* filed his taxes for the past ten years. Has there been any indication of questionable behavior after the IRS reviewed his past decade of tax filing? Over the past 20 years of running for public office, what evidence has emerged to indicate Romney not paying what he has been legally obligated to pay? Brother Romney paid his taxes and his filing of his taxes are easily provable.

Brother Reid, on the other hand, has spoken of an anonymous source which is no way provable to exist unless Brother Reid reveals his source. I do not think he will since I'm convinced that he made the whole scenario up.

[ERayR]

Romney pulled the same stunt in 1994, 2002, and now in 2012.

The Obamas’ reported a total of $245,075, or 14.2% of their adjusted gross income, in charitable contributions.

Mr. Romney is under no legal obligation to release his tax returns. However it is highly hypocritical for him to demand that others do what he refuses to do.

Pulled what stunt?

[thesometimesaint]

I fail to see what is so funny about answering a question.

Of course it is easy. The question is why is Romney so unwilling to prove it?

Mr. Romney can give lie to the statements of Mr. Reid. But so far he has refused to do so saying in essence Trust Me. Given his actions in 1994, 2002, and now in 2012 I see little/no reason to trust him.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Please read the Links I provided.

[Darren10]

Sure.

http://www.rawstory....eturns-in-2002/

http://brianekoenig....-contributions/

US Constitution. See first source

Here's the title and link of your first link: Maddow: Romney demanded opponents’ tax returns and lied about residency in 2002. Here's a story I read about maddow just this morning (I believe): Rachel Maddow Pushes Discredited Romney Tax Return Conspiracy Theory…From 2002. from the latter link (my story) you'll read the following:

And as it turns out, that high stakes game was played. The Democrats did, in fact, challenge Romney’s residency, claiming that he’d intentionally lied about living in Massachusetts, when his primary place of living had really been in Utah. Like Reid, Obama and Maddow today, they banked on it either knocking Romney out of contention or damaging him irrecoverably.

…It didn’t:

His uncontested march to the Republican nomination soon hit a roadblock when the Massachusetts Democratic Party challenged his candidacy, contending Romney’s three years in Utah disqualified him because the Massachusetts Constitution requires seven years of residency before the election.

Initially, Romney’s campaign insisted that he had filed his federal income taxes as a resident of Massachusetts. But soon after, he acknowledged he had filed as a Utah resident for two years and had amended those tax returns after announcing his candidacy to show Massachusetts as his home.[...]

Over three days in June, the state Ballot Law Commission heard evidence about his tax returns and the fact that the Romneys’ Utah home had been classified as his “primary residence,” giving him an $18,000 property-tax break each of three years.

Romney attributed the mistakes to his accountant and the local tax assessor, who under oath acknowledged the error and after the commission proceedings sent him a new bill to recoup $54,587

.

If the tax filings suggested Romney was hedging his political bets, the evidence also showed he always maintained his Belmont voting address – choosing George W. Bush over John McCain in the 2000 Republican presidential primary, he recently said – and had returned for special occasions while in Utah, maintaining ties to Bay State boards and organizations.

“He never severed his ties to Massachusetts,“ and ”his testimony was credible in all respects,” the board concluded in a unanimous, 41-page decision.

The assault on Romney brought him sympathy

, and he accused Democrats of “ridiculous, dirty politics.”

So, essentially, Rachael Maddow promoted a story in order to swing pursuasion to the political side she likes which controversy in that story was already dedunked under oath. But, then again, it's Rachael Maddow. I do not expect anything less than that level of quality reporting.

Your second link, Obama and Biden 2010 Tax Returns and Charitable Contributions, this has more credibility, but first, the "evolution" (he likes that word) of Obama's charitable donations:

Obama only gave 1% of his income to charity last year.

FOX Nation reported:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income

2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%

2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%

Romney Gave 15% to Charity – Obama Gave 1% to Charity

Here's where the 14.2% went to:

Obamas' Charity Donations In 2010: Which Organizations Did They Give To?

[cdowis]

Getting back to Brother Reid. This is how I see it.

Senator Reid has a problem among his supporters. A member of our forum had a personal conversion with him before the last election, and reported that Reid had no interest in the Mormon vote.

1. It is probably that his supporters have expressed a concern that he has not "gotten into the game" of discrediting Romney. They are wondering what side he is on -- he must decide between his Mormon affiliation or his political position. He has got to be more forceful in his opposition to Romney.

2. I see this as a brilliant scheme to force him to make a decision. One of their associates called Reid with the accusation, and they watched to see how he would respond. Now Reid has to choose whether to downplay it (with a nod to his Mormonism), or to get into the game.

3. Reid understood the situation, and had no choice but to get off the fence. Politics won over and he made a forceful attack.

This is how I see the future for Reid.

His supporters understand Reid's position on abortion, but since that is pretty much a settled issue, they have given alot of play on that issue.

But, now that the Dems are going to make same sex marriage a major platform issue, they need his help. Again, Reid will now be forced to move against the church position, and demonstrate his loyalty to his supporters.

His attack on Romney is a path leading to an inevitable and predictable outcome in his choice between religion and politics. He has made a major step in that direction.

This is how I see things for Brother Reid, and see a dark future for him.

[Calm]

As a member of our forum had a personal conversion with him, and he recognizes that his election does not depend on the Mormon vote.

Details?

[cdowis]

Details?

They happened to be in an elevator together, and they had a short conversation where Reid expressed that he knew the Mormons were not going to vote for him. His re-election depended on those outside the church.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

Getting back to Brother Reid. This is how I see it.

Senator Reid has a problem among his supporters. A member of our forum had a personal conversion with him before the last election, and reported that Reid had no interest in the Mormon vote.

1. It is probably that his supporters have expressed a concern that he has not "gotten into the game" of discrediting Romney. They are wondering what side he is on -- he must decide between his Mormon affiliation or his political position. He has got to be more forceful in his opposition to Romney.

2. I see this as a brilliant scheme to force him to make a decision. One of their associates called Reid with the accusation, and they watched to see how he would respond. Now Reid has to choose whether to downplay it (with a nod to his Mormonism), or to get into the game.

3. Reid understood the situation, and had no choice but to get off the fence. Politics won over and he made a forceful attack.

This is how I see the future for Reid.

His supporters understand Reid's position on abortion, but since that is pretty much a settled issue, they have given alot of play on that issue.

But, now that the Dems are going to make same sex marriage a major platform issue, they need his help. Again, Reid will now be forced to move against the church position, and demonstrate his loyalty to his supporters.

His attack on Romney is a path leading to an inevitable and predictable outcome in his choice between religion and politics. He has made a major step in that direction.

This is how I see things for Brother Reid, and see a dark future for him.

1. The Mormon vote is irrelevant in Nevada.

2. Why? Is it a tenet of our religion to vote for a particular person?

3. Why? Is Mr. Romney some how sacrosanct? 21 of the most influential Republicans have called on him to release more of his tax returns. So it is hardly only a partisan issue.

Why would Mr. Reid have to adopt any of his party's platform planks? Not even Presidents do so. TTBOMK Mr. Reid has repeatedly said that he personally opposes SS marriage and any effort to change the US Constitution to outlaw it.

[Calm]

So it is hardly only a partisan issue.

Are they calling on him because they doubt his truthfulness or just in hopes that by doing so it will stop being an issue. If the latter, then it is still a partisan issue since it is Dems that are accompanying the demand along with an accusation.

[cdowis]

sometimes,

Clearly you have not understood my post. Perhaps it is partly my fault, but there is just too much to try to explain.

[Darren10]

cdowis #63;

I find that a pretty good analysis.

[Stargazer]

1. The Mormon vote is irrelevant in Nevada.

Actually it isn't irrelevant. The percentage of Mormons in Nevada is 11%. LDS are third after Catholics (#1) and various Protestants (#3).

An 11% share in a poltical contest means you cannot be completely disregarded.

I will admit that if you are a liberal democrat the Mormon vote is irrelevant, but not in general.

2. Why? Is it a tenet of our religion to vote for a particular person?

No, but it might as well be.

3. Why? Is Mr. Romney some how sacrosanct? 21 of the most influential Republicans have called on him to release more of his tax returns. So it is hardly only a partisan issue.

Mr. Romney is not at all sacrosanct. But why should he release more tax returns? He's done his legal duty. The only reason Reid wants him to is to find further ammo for the "out of touch" slander. I actually think that Romney may be waiting until the last minute to release more returns, in the same way that Barack Obama waited to finally get around to revealing his birth certficate. For Mr. Obama it provided months of entertainment as the crowd of right-wing fringe nitwits demanded to see it, making them look more and more like the bunch of loons they are. Then, kablooie! If Mr. Obama had simply given in at the beginning it wouldn't have been anywhere near as effective. That was simply brilliant politics. He kept it in the news for months, making his critics look more and more like the buffoons they were.

I think that Romney is going to pull the same maneuver, and for the same reason.

Why would Mr. Reid have to adopt any of his party's platform planks? Not even Presidents do so. TTBOMK Mr. Reid has repeatedly said that he personally opposes SS marriage and any effort to change the US Constitution to outlaw it.

I, for one, am glad that Mr. Reid opposes SSM.

[BCSpace]

So in a interview and again on the Senate Floor, Harry Reid has stated he was told by an investor at Bain Capital that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years. He also stated Mitt's father would have been ashamed of him.

http://www.lvrj.com/...-164680576.html

It's a standard tactic to make such outrageous claims and implications that a candidate feels forced to open the records so that other dirt can be found or created. Obama used the tactic often in his early political career to get opposing candidates to, for example, open up divorce records which contained embarrassing details that could be exploited. Other Democratic candidates have not opened all their records (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are especially egregious). Romney should not open any more records while pointing out his detractiors have not opened their records.

All in all, so what if Romney has paid no taxes by legally sheltering his money? All financial advice leads to this strategy, separated equity being one of them.

[selek1]

It's a standard tactic to make such outrageous claims and implications that a candidate feels forced to open the records so that other dirt can be found or created. Obama used the tactic often in his early political career to get opposing candidates to, for example, open up divorce records which contained embarrassing details that could be exploited. Other Democratic candidates have not opened all their records (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are especially egregious). Romney should not open any more records while pointing out his detractiors have not opened their records.

All in all, so what if Romney has paid no taxes by legally sheltering his money? All financial advice leads to this strategy, separated equity being one of them.

This is incorrect.

Caesar Obama's political team only convinced the target of the pressure to open the records once.

In every other instance, he persuaded either a judge (who happened to be a political donor ) or an anonymous informant to do the dirty work for him.

Romney has already met all of his legal and moral disclosure obligations.

Reid- with the express approval and coordination of Caesar Obama's political team- is conducting a McCarthyesque fishing expedition.

I believe it will fail for the same reasons McCarthy did.

[ERayR]

This is incorrect.

Caesar Obama's political team only convinced the target of the pressure to open the records once.

In every other instance, he persuaded either a judge (who happened to be a political donor ) or an anonymous informant to do the dirty work for him.

Romney has already met all of his legal and moral disclosure obligations.

Reid- with the express approval and coordination of Caesar Obama's political team- is conducting a McCarthyesque fishing expedition.

I believe it will fail for the same reasons McCarthy did.

One can only hope and pray that it fails.

[Tacenda]

This is incorrect.

Caesar Obama's political team only convinced the target of the pressure to open the records once.

In every other instance, he persuaded either a judge (who happened to be a political donor ) or an anonymous informant to do the dirty work for him.

Romney has already met all of his legal and moral disclosure obligations.

Reid- with the express approval and coordination of Caesar Obama's political team- is conducting a McCarthyesque fishing expedition.

I believe it will fail for the same reasons McCarthy did.

I was under the impression that everyone pays taxes, from the rich to the poor. Are there loopholes or different ways one can pay taxes in the corporate world? I guess I just don't get it. If there is even a hint of Romney not paying taxes wouldn't he have been audited by now. Which brings me to the conclusion that he would have paid them.

[ERayR]

I was under the impression that everyone pays taxes, from the rich to the poor. Are there loopholes or different ways one can pay taxes in the corporate world? I guess I just don't get it. If there is even a hint of Romney not paying taxes wouldn't he have been audited by now. Which brings me to the conclusion that he would have paid them.

Everyone does not pay taxes, To start with a certain income level must be reached then there is several refundable and non-refundable credits to low income filers which allows them to receive some very substantial ( up to the 6 to 7 thousand dollar range) "refunds" without ever paying taxes. Once ones income exceeds the levels that allow these "refunds" there is several tax brackets and income types that are taxed at different rates or not at all. Ordinary income is taxed at 10% up to 35% depending on the income level. Income types are taxed at these different levels or not at all depending on the type of income.1- Earned income is taxed at the rate for the tax bracket f the taxpayer. 2-Portfolio income is from buying and selling assets and its usual form is capital gains or stock investments, bond investments, and government bond investments. These types taxed at different rates from full bore for some dividend income, to a lesser amount for capital gains to nothing for some government bonds. 3-Passive income is rental real estate, sales of intellectual property and Multilevel marketing.

A very wealth individual could conceivable pay no taxes by buying tax free municipal bonds but these investments have a very low rate of return (not much income). They could also be in the tax bracket if their income was from capital gains as 15% is the highest capital gains tax bracket.

This is an executive summary of many thousands of pages of tax law that most people find confusing at best.

So yess Mr. Romney or you or me or anybody else could very well end up in a o% to 15% tax bracket depending on income type and not be nefarious or dishonest only willing to take less income and invest in low yielding investments.