31
   

What could possibly go worse for Mitt Romney?

 
 
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 08:14 pm
I am thinking sex scandal.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 31 • Views: 10,108 • Replies: 192

 
MMarciano
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 08:16 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I am thinking sex scandal.


People find out he's a bottom?
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 08:51 pm
@maxdancona,
A menage a trois with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Rap
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:17 pm
@raprap,
This thread is about what could go wrong
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 09:55 pm
@maxdancona,
Ugh. Not touching that...

Anyway... Hey, ask Finn D'Abuzz - he'll tell you he thinks mitt's doing just fine, and is still going to win in November!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2012 11:39 pm
nobody cares. this is however a great time for those on the Right to start to deal with how corrupt and broken our political system is.

McCain and then Romney??!! the odds of two such lousy rolls in a row without loaded dice are inconceivable.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:12 am
@hawkeye10,
Nobody cares!? Nobody cares?!?!?? Why you phony ****. You think you'd be all
"nobody cares" if Romney were leading this race?

You folks on the right and republicans are gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than "Well, we don't care - the grapes were sour anyway:

If Willard Mitt Romney goes down in flames like its appearing he will, I want all of you shits on the right to FEEL it.
BillRM
 
  6  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:32 am
@maxdancona,
If it come out that he did not paid taxes for any of the years he is refusing to release.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:39 am
@BillRM,
Bill wins!
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:41 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

You folks on the right and republicans are gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than "Well, we don't care - the grapes were sour anyway:

If Willard Mitt Romney goes down in flames like its appearing he will, I want all of you shits on the right to FEEL it.


Dittoing this pitch perfect sentiment.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:13 am
@snood,
Ya, nobody cares about Romney, those on the right care about ideas and the team though. I fully expect those on the right to conclude if he goes down "we never liked him, and he is not one of us and he did not try to sell our ideas so his loss means nothing to us"

What I would like them to do is to contenplate our broken political system....and our increasingly broken collective, which accounts for the mccain-Romney one/two punch.

Just a reminder:I consider myself to be a radical leftist who thinks both parties should be replaced.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:20 am
@BillRM,
Evidently there's a theory out there -- I just heard it from a friend, in person, and haven't seen anything so absolutely not vouching for it -- that Romney may have taken advantage of a 2009 amnesty that was offered to tax scofflaws.

Found this, Matt Yglesias is not a crank. I'm still a little skeptical though.

Matt Yglesias wrote:
When attempting to engage in baseless speculation over what it is that's in Mitt Romney's tax statements that's so embarassing he'd rather take the heat for non-disclosure, I think it's important to remember that he was actively running for president in 2007 and 2008. That means it's relatively unlike he was doing anything during those years that he thought couldn't withstand scrutiny. So why not release a nice even five years of tax data? Perhaps because of something that happened in 2009.

Something like this:

Quote:
Wealthy U.S. taxpayers, concerned about an Internal Revenue Service crackdown on the use of secret overseas bank accounts as tax havens, are rushing to meet a Thursday deadline to disclose those accounts or face possible criminal prosecution. The concern was triggered this summer when Switzerland's largest bank, caught up in an international tax evasion dispute, said it would disclose the names of more than 4,000 of its U.S. account holders.

The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money, and it raised concern that other international tax havens might be next. Under an amnesty program, the IRS is allowing taxpayers to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts. As a result, tax attorneys across the nation have been besieged by wealthy clients who are lining up to apply even though they will still face big financial penalties.

Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he'd set up years earlier precisely because it wasn't disclosed. But then came the settlement and the rush of non-disclosers to apply for the amnesty. Failing to apply for the amnesty and then getting charged by the IRS would have been both financially and politically disastrous. So amnesty it was. But even though the amnesty would eliminate any legal or financial liability for past acts, it would hardly eliminate political liability.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html

At any rate.... that's something that possibly could go worse!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:30 am
@sozobe,
It is far fetched that a guy from a political family who had asperations for the presidency would not pay the legally required taxes. I expect the issue is how little was required of him by the tax code after the legally approved shelters and dodges were used.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:33 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

It is far fetched that a guy from a political family who had asperations for the presidency would not pay the legally required taxes. I expect the issue is how little was required of him by the tax code after the legally approved shelters and dodges were used.


Yes, this is exactly correct. 'Legally required' means something a lot different when you can pay lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up aggressive tax shelters.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:34 am
@hawkeye10,
If he thought that there was no way the Swiss bank would give him up, I could see it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:36 am
@hawkeye10,
Often those dodges were considered legally approved because some lawyer or accountant said they were. That often happens until the IRS steps in with a ruling stating it isn't legal. Romney could have thought it was legal based on advice from his tax advisors only to find out later that it wasn't.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:38 am
@hawkeye10,
Oh?

Hawkeye it would look like a low risk thing to do given the past history of the Swiss banks of protecting their customers and he would hardly be the first politicain to take unwise risks when looking back.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 10:57 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Often those dodges were considered legally approved because some lawyer or accountant said they were. That often happens until the IRS steps in with a ruling stating it isn't legal. Romney could have thought it was legal based on advice from his tax advisors only to find out later that it wasn't.


This is possible...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:02 am
I suppose people could start leaving his campaign....

Pawlenty to take over as Financial Services Roundtable CEO

Quote:
Pawlenty has stepped down as co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to take the position.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:09 am
@parados,
That's possible too.

The point is that the use of these Swiss bank accounts as tax havens was both illegal and thought to be stupendously confidential. A specific thing happened in 2009 where a Swiss bank was going to release 4,000 names of U.S. account holders as a byproduct of an international tax evasion dispute.

From what I quoted above:

Quote:
The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money,


The IRS allowed those 4,000 people to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts as long as they paid taxes, as part of an amnesty program.

So in this scenario (which, again, I'm not saying HAPPENED, just that it's somewhat plausible):

- Romney squirrels money away in Swiss bank accounts and (illegally) fails to pay taxes on that money, under the justified impression that it would remain stupendously confidential and nobody would ever know.

- The Swiss bank spills the beans, and the IRS knows about the money.

- The IRS offers him amnesty, if he pays taxes on that money.

- He does. No harm done.... legally. If it comes out, though, it would certainly add to his political woes.
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What could possibly go worse for Mitt Romney?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 02:14:42