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

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Back on topic, why should we trust Romney on his taxes now, when he is already on record that he lied on his tax returns ~10 years ago?

Link

Link

So he had to publicly admit he lied and had to retroactively revise his returns 3 years later.

So why would anyone believe him now about his taxes? He's already been proven to have lied about them before.
You realize the righties will summarily dismiss this because you linked to DailyKos, right? It would have been better to link directly to the original New York Times and Boston Globe articles. Nonetheless, I think it offers an interesting new perspective on why Romney might be refusing to release his recent returns.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Another strawman! I didn't need or benefit from prosecutorial amnesty wrt offshore accounts I hadn't revealed in violation of the law, unlike nearly 15,000 offshoring fat cats, Mitt likely among them.

Interesting derivation, I wonder if it should be considered a new type of loonie returner reason. I think so. Here is the newly created loonie returner reason you just said:

"Cause he is following a portion of the tax law that I also follow, but since I do not use that portion I am mad he followed the law."

:D
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The 'signature' in this case is the wet seal/stamp on the back of the birth certificate. If you look at the front of the digital scan, you can even see the date of issuance that has bled or been imprinted through the paper. This is very common, in many states.

Edit: And the previously linked factcheck.org site also shows the signature on the back. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/


Ah, I did not know that. Only the raised seal was mentioned in the other post. I took it as being true without having to follow the link, so I did not bother to do so. Thanks for this info.

Given the additional information (location of birth, signature, and raised seal), the Hawaii short form fits the federal requirements and no long form is needed. I retract the previous statements saying he needed the long form, since he did not.

I still stand by my statement that Obama never needed to even show a birth certificate at all to prove he is a a natural born citizen; his mother passed it to him genetically.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
You realize the righties will summarily dismiss this because you linked to DailyKos, right? It would have been better to link directly to the original New York Times and Boston Globe articles. Nonetheless, I think it offers an interesting new perspective on why Romney might be refusing to release his recent returns.

New York Times is liberal propaganda, with less credibility than the tabloids. So no, I don't think that would make a difference.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
New York Times is liberal propaganda, with less credibility than the tabloids. So no, I don't think that would make a difference.

Republican think-tank circa 1980:
"We have a problem! We want to get 50+% of the population to vote for us, but facts keep getting in the way of our arguments!"
"Well, simply vilify every source for facts as liberal propaganda for a few decades! The free press, science, universities, government studies - if it's a source of knowledge that we don't control, just say it's all liberal lies over and over again! Then the only 'objective' source for information will be our propaganda channels!"
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
New York Times is liberal propaganda, with less credibility than the tabloids. So no, I don't think that would make a difference.
I'm sure it doesn't to someone like you. Virtually every one of your posts shows your are way out on the right wing fringe, immune to objective fact and rational thought. Enjoy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Interesting derivation, I wonder if it should be considered a new type of loonie returner reason. I think so. Here is the newly created loonie returner reason you just said:

"Cause he is following a portion of the tax law that I also follow, but since I do not use that portion I am mad he followed the law."

:D

You can't possibly believe that. The only reason that the other 15,000 rich offshore tax dodgers took amnesty is because they believed they were on the verge of being busted for felonious tax evasion. They obviously weren't following the law prior to that. Otherwise, amnesty would have been meaningless.

Too bad that the anti-business class warfare Obama Admin let them off the hook. They'd have looked good being frog marched into federal court, Mitt in particular.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
You can't possibly believe that. The only reason that the other 15,000 rich offshore tax dodgers took amnesty is because they believed they were on the verge of being busted for felonious tax evasion. They obviously weren't following the law prior to that. Otherwise, amnesty would have been meaningless.

Too bad that the anti-business class warfare Obama Admin let them off the hook. They'd have looked good being frog marched into federal court, Mitt in particular.

While I didn't personally work on any amnesty cases, I read (and posted links here) the IRS memos instructing IRS personnel on amnesty cases. The IRS memos say people suspected of criminal tax fraud are not allowed in the amnesty program.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
While I didn't personally work on any amnesty cases, I read (and posted links here) the IRS memos instructing IRS personnel on amnesty cases. The IRS memos say people suspected of criminal tax fraud are not allowed in the amnesty program.

Fern

Yawn. When the IRS defines what is and what is not *criminal* tax fraud, when they're extending amnesty, it's obvious that anybody who voluntarily comes clean & sends money will not be prosecuted.

Sheesh.

The failure to file the FBAR is a felony for each year that the FBAR is not timely filed. In addition, the failure to report income of foreign accounts can constitute the crime of tax evasion.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Feb/276275.html

Failure to disclose the existence of an offshore bank account in excess of $10K is a felony strictly on the basis of that failure alone, something I'm sure you knew before you obfuscated your way through that post. The IRS treating it as such is discretionary on their part.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You can't possibly believe that. The only reason that the other 15,000 rich offshore tax dodgers took amnesty is because they believed they were on the verge of being busted for felonious tax evasion. They obviously weren't following the law prior to that. Otherwise, amnesty would have been meaningless.

Too bad that the anti-business class warfare Obama Admin let them off the hook. They'd have looked good being frog marched into federal court, Mitt in particular.

Yep, you are mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
I'm sure it doesn't to someone like you. Virtually every one of your posts shows your are way out on the right wing fringe, immune to objective fact and rational thought. Enjoy.

Have you heard of Jayson Blair? His stories were fiction, and the ones that weren't were plagiarized. But the New York Times kept him on for a long time because he was very liberal and a minority. The paper is a joke to anyone who can think for themselves.

I'm sure to someone as brainwashed as you, you think Fox is more biased.
 
Last edited:

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Yep, you are mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following.
To start with a relevant quote from Volaire for starters in response "All are equal before the majesty of the law. Rich as well as poor are prohibited from stealing bread, begging for change, and sleeping under bridges."

The reality is that the average American doesn't have a Swiss bank account the IRS didn't know about, nor did they have over 10,000 dollars in such an account.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
To start with a relevant quote from Volaire for starters in response "All are equal before the majesty of the law. Rich as well as poor are prohibited from stealing bread, begging for change, and sleeping under bridges."

The reality is that the average American doesn't have a Swiss bank account the IRS didn't know about, nor did they have over 10,000 dollars in such an account.

So are you saying you agree it is stupid to hold the loonie birther belief that we should be mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following or are you saying it is fine to hold the loonie birther beliefe that we should be mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following? It is not clear from your post.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
So are you saying you agree it is stupid to hold the loonie birther belief that we should be mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following or are you saying it is fine to hold the loonie birther beliefe that we should be mad they are following the same tax laws that you are following? It is not clear from your post.
You appear to have previously suggested that we should not have an issue with people taking advantage of the Swiss Amnesty provision.

This obviously falls under the now technically legal but highly unethical and immoral category. We're talking about people who in virtually all cases deliberately engaged in tax evasion by hiding money in Swiss bank accounts and only came clean with the amnesty provision out of concern that with the IRS now getting more info from Swiss banks they would find out about the bank account and potentially criminally charge them if they didn't come clean.

The fact they are now technically legally in the clear if they took advantage of this does not change the reality that this specific tax history background should be effectively disqualifying as far as anyone seeking a significant political office is concerned.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You claim it is unethical and immoral to follow the laws of the US and that people who do it should not be President? Odd.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
You claim it is unethical and immoral to follow the laws of the US and that people who do it should not be President? Odd.
You apparently have no moral and ethical compass whatsoever and don't grasp the difference between merely complying with the law and behavior complying with those other points.

We're actually talking about people who deliberately engaged in tax evasion in violation of U.S. tax laws in most cases and only retroactively got in the legal clear due to the being able to take advantage of the Swiss amnesty provision and pay what they owed to the IRS. Rational people recognize it makes sense to hold someone who is a Presidential candidate to a higher standard than such technical retroactive compliance.

I'm still quite skeptical Romney actually did this specifically, but the way you're trying to suggest it would be ok for him to have done so is certainly worthy of comment.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I am saying that if Romney followed the law, like everyone else, then it is loonie to be mad at him for following the law. The loonie returner conspiracy theory which basically says he has to prove he is innocent or else he is guilty, is silly. I expose it as such.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
To start with a relevant quote from Volaire for starters in response "All are equal before the majesty of the law. Rich as well as poor are prohibited from stealing bread, begging for change, and sleeping under bridges."

The reality is that the average American doesn't have a Swiss bank account the IRS didn't know about, nor did they have over 10,000 dollars in such an account.

Other than mis-attributing a quote from Anatole France to Voltaire, you are correct.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I am saying that if Romney followed the law, like everyone else, then it is loonie to be mad at him for following the law. The loonie returner conspiracy theory which basically says he has to prove he is innocent or else he is guilty, is silly. I expose it as such.
That's because you are amoral. You think the letter of the law is all that matters, and not the spirit. You have no sense whatsoever of right and wrong.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I am saying that if Romney followed the law, like everyone else, then it is loonie to be mad at him for following the law. The loonie returner conspiracy theory which basically says he has to prove he is innocent or else he is guilty, is silly. I expose it as such.

If you actually believe that, you're delusional. I think not.

Having been made team captain, Romney must be defended at all costs, otherwise it reflects badly on the team.

As well it should, which is why you deny any wrongdoing on his part, ever.

If he took the amnesty, does that mean he was following the law prior to that? Obviously not.

While the law has forgiven such behavior in return for money, it's unlikely that the voters would.

Dance around that all you want, but I suspect that's why we'll never see any more of Mitt's tax returns, ever.

In terms his own father would have used, Mitt is unworthy of our trust, and that will only become more apparent as the election nears.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Yawn. When the IRS defines what is and what is not *criminal* tax fraud, when they're extending amnesty, it's obvious that anybody who voluntarily comes clean & sends money will not be prosecuted.

Sheesh.



http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Feb/276275.html

Failure to disclose the existence of an offshore bank account in excess of $10K is a felony strictly on the basis of that failure alone, something I'm sure you knew before you obfuscated your way through that post. The IRS treating it as such is discretionary on their part.

No, that's not how it works.

The IRS doesn't prosecute criminal tax fraud or any felonies, the DoJ does.

If you think the Obama DoJ under Eric Holder let Romney 'slide', I can't help you.

Fern
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
No, that's not how it works.

The IRS doesn't prosecute criminal tax fraud or any felonies, the DoJ does.

If you think the Obama DoJ under Eric Holder let Romney 'slide', I can't help you.

Fern

Yeah. Romney is not a risk taker, and he is not an idiot. Personally, I don't believe there's anything illegal in his tax returns.

I am just as certain, however, that there is indeed something in those returns that he finds embarrassing or doesn't want revealed to the voting public. He is a calculating man. He would only refuse to release more tax returns if he thought that releasing those returns would hurt him more than continuing to let the Democrats use the accusation.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You realize the righties will summarily dismiss this because you linked to DailyKos, right? It would have been better to link directly to the original New York Times and Boston Globe articles. Nonetheless, I think it offers an interesting new perspective on why Romney might be refusing to release his recent returns.

You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink! LOL

But it sure does seem interesting that he had to admit lying about his tax forms a decade ago, and we are once again witnessing the "trust me, nothing to see here" BS from him.

I don't see how you can claim ignorance for listing the wrong state for residency, that had to be deliberate. NOt to mention god knows how many CPA's do his taxes and check them, it's not like he does his own and made a type with a number or anything.

But the partisan types will ignore it like they do all other facts they don't like.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
If you actually believe that, you're delusional. I think not.

Having been made team captain, Romney must be defended at all costs, otherwise it reflects badly on the team.

As well it should, which is why you deny any wrongdoing on his part, ever.

If he took the amnesty, does that mean he was following the law prior to that? Obviously not.

While the law has forgiven such behavior in return for money, it's unlikely that the voters would.

Dance around that all you want, but I suspect that's why we'll never see any more of Mitt's tax returns, ever.

In terms his own father would have used, Mitt is unworthy of our trust, and that will only become more apparent as the election nears.

So now you have returned to the loonie returner reason of "one guy once said something so everyone has to do it". Interesting lack of logic you have.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Yeah. Romney is not a risk taker, and he is not an idiot. Personally, I don't believe there's anything illegal in his tax returns.

I am just as certain, however, that there is indeed something in those returns that he finds embarrassing or doesn't want revealed to the voting public. He is a calculating man. He would only refuse to release more tax returns if he thought that releasing those returns would hurt him more than continuing to let the Democrats use the accusation.

You nailed it. Romney also realized that the loonie returners will slowly fade away, like the loonie birthers did. He just has to wait them out. The birthers had a strong surge at one point (like the returners did), but they were just a bunch of loons in the end.