Ann Romney on Mitt's taxes

"Mitt Romney's wife is reinforcing her husband's refusal to make public more of his of tax returns, saying "we've given all you people need to know" about the family's finances." [AP]



  1. Think about it: 
    Ann Romney says the family gives 10 percent of its income to the Mormon church

    Mitt Romney pays, from what I’ve read, 15 14 percent of his income as taxes….

    1.  Mitt is a priest in the Mormon church and one of their rules it that you have to tithe 10% or you may be kicked out.

      1. Mitt is a priest in the Mormon church and one of their rules it that you have to tithe 10% or you may be kicked out.

        What makes you think that he’s releasing accurate financial data to the church?

        1. It’s not required to release financial data to the Mormon church. And no one gets kicked out for not paying tithing.

    2. Don’t forget that Romney also got the town of Belmont (Massachusetts) to waive its building height regulations so that the Mo’s could build their massive temple in that upper-class suburban community against the wishes of the non-Mormon community at large. (But hey at least they gave tours to the heathen before locking them out).

    3. Which, if she is treating it as remotely salient to the matter of tax returns, shows a dangerous level of either Doesn’t Get It or disingenuousness…

      Do we think that it’s nice that Mitt donates to his club of choice? Sure, possibly.

      Are his private donations remotely salient to whether or not he is a walking mockery of the tax code? No, not exactly.

    1. Of course, the” little” is implied between the words “you” and “people”.

      No need for her to state the obvious, that would be beneath her (where the little people scurry about).

    2. I thought Mitt could take multiple wives. I didn’t realize Ann could take another husband.

      1. Ann Romney cannot have multiple husbands. Mitt cannot have multiple wives. Mormon women always have had one husband.

        Mormon men belonging to the Church of Latter Day Saints have not been allowed multiple wives for generations. 

        This is why Key Parties were invented (in SLC.)

        1. The actual title of the sect is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Reformed”.  The “, Reformed” means they’re the mainstream that ditched polygamy to stop being an occupied state and get full US of A membership.  Without the “, Reformed” they didn’t and mostly live in Colorado City, Utah (if in Utah at all) as opposed to the Salt Lake City area.

          There are quite a few splinter Mormon Groups with various different prefixes and suffixes: “Reorganised”, “Reformed”, etc.  Most split on issues of succession of the Church Leadership not having to do with polygamy and some didn’t even make it all the way to Utah in the original exodus from New England.  You often see members picketing the openings of mainstream Mormon temples with pamphlets poo-poohing said mainstream.  In membership terms they’re probably less than 10% of the total movement.

        2. It is true the LDS church does not condone plural marriage in this life. However, LDS men, unlike LDS women, may take multiple spouses in the Celestrial Kingdom (aka afterlife). It’s a benefit of the LDS’ version of a virtuous life.

    3. Either campaigning for Kerrywife, or he thought she was the candidate for the presidency.

    1.  The need to do a show where Romney quotes are put up against quotes generated by The Onion, and you have to decide which is which.

  2. And by “you people” she is referring to who? Such terminology is a big window into Romney’s thinking. 

    Keep your returns, loose the election, that sounds fine to me.

    1.  Since she was responding to a question by a BLACK female interviewer I guess “you people” means ABC employee.

      The video can be found here and the quote happes around 2:10 – for those have heard she is just saying “um people”.

      1. Intriguingly, she says just before that that she doesn’t want to reveal more because it would just be attacked. So there you have it.

        1. That seems to be an honest answer, at least. What politician voluntarily releases information (transcripts, funding, etc.) that the other party _could_ use as ammunition?

    2. I figured she meant the American public, with no regard to the fact that “we people” are the ones her husband is depending on to become President.  So, good luck with that!

  3. Ann says that we’ve been told all we need to know, and Mitt says that real Americans don’t care if he has a plan for Afghanistan. I, for one, am an American who is sick to fucking death of these people telling me how and what to think.

    1. Roger that, and add Mitch McConnell to that list.  It seems like every time I hear him he’s claiming special knowledge of what the American people want.  The American people don’t want blahblahblah. What the American people want is blahblahblah.  Puhleaze.

  4. I’m perfectly OK with a politician who wants to maintain a certain level of privacy.  I don’t need to see tax returns, birth certificates, or school records; so while it’s fair to ask for stuff like this, I think we should try to respect a refusal on privacy grounds.

    That’s saying nothing about how the response was made this time in particular (which was, at most charitable, very badly phrased).

    1. The guy is campaigning for the highest public office.  Why should’t those making the decision have all the facts available to them?  And the difference between tax returns and college transcripts is pretty clear to me.  Any of ‘us people’ have to show our returns when we ask for trust from a creditor, which shows our responsibility over a period of time closest to the request. 

      Transcripts, not so much… 

      1. Yeah, college transcripts would only be of interest if the candidate is being touted by his supporters as being, say, one of the smartest men ever to seek the office.

        1. Touted, eh? Citation, please?  And objectively, he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.  One does not simply walk into that position. Later, he was a professor of constitutional law at U. of Chicago, I think. One of the top schools in the country. So, a bunch of people whom anyone would consider to be pretty smart decided that he was amongst the brightest of their company in a couple of instances. Public record. But all this was a long time ago.  And we’re talking about Mitt’s taxes and how he seems offended by his prospective employers’ desire to know the same thing about him as they know about the other candidates for the job.  Bye, now.

    2. Tax returns reveal investments in companies, which reveal conflicts of interest. For example, if a Vice Presidential nominee owned a weapons company, that would be the kind of conflict of interest which would get that nominee not only withdrawn from nomination, but also kicked out of politics completely… oh wait.

      1. Really, then, all members of Congress should reveal their tax returns. As well as presidential candidates.

        1. Yes, they should. Voters have a reasonable right to know if their elected officials actually pay taxes.

        2. Yeah –  I’d be OK with this being a blanket disclosure requirement that affected all politicians above a certain level.  It’s fair; it removes the horrid “If you have nothing to hide…” taunt, and ensures that we don’t get “selective enforcement by media pressure”.  

          1. That’s right.  It’s just like a background check for buying a firearm.  The public have a reasonable right to know if people who will be handling billions of taxpayer dollars have done anything illegal with their own finances, and a gun shop has every right to know that they’re not selling a deadly weapon to someone who has used one for illegal purposes.

  5. I’m asking this in all seriousness and because I know and trust the BB peeps to be, for the most part, smart and in the know. Do most mormons really wear this “magic underwear” all the time, or is it just for special occasions? I just  cannot believe that is a real thing.

    1. It’s really real!  However, most Mormons don’t wear it most of the time and many not at all.  It depends on which subsection of the whole Mormon sect you’re in (there are various splinter groups and also orders within the mainstream) and your rank therein.

      To transduce it into Catholic terms – think rosary beads.

      1. Rosary beads are not often worn – I think a better Catholic parallel would be the scapular, most commonly the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. But I don’t think a significant percent of Catholics wear that either.

        Mitt does wear magic underwear. You can see the outline of it under his shirts on occasion.

      2. To transduce it into Catholic terms – think rosary beads.

        When I think rosary beads, I usually think of Divine and Mink Stole.

    2. Isn’t it just wool? Wool is much more fire resistant than cotton, so the tales of magical underwear protecting people from fire is sort of true. Not magic, just, that’s one of the properties of wool. 

    3. This is from John Safran vs God. An Aussie guy goes around the  world trying a bunch of different religions. Watch the whole series if you get a chance because it’s all pretty funny. In this he goes to Salt Lake City and asks people about the magic underwear. He even manages to buy some while on hidden camera.

  6. Just remember, Mittens. You have nothing to fear unless you have something to hide.

    How’s that feel, huh?

  7. I pulled the audio, slowed down the part in question, and listened to it a bunch of times. She’s definitely starting to say a “ye” sound after “all”, but then doesn’t finish that word.

    Two possible scenarios: (1) She WAS going to say “all you people” but caught herself, or (2) she was going to say, “all you need to know” and then decided to use “people” instead of “you” mid sentence. “We’ve given all y-, . . . We’ve given all people need to know.”

    Both are plausible from the audio. And neither changes my opinion about MR or BO.

  8. What I don’t understand is why we need to pass a tax cut for the rich if they’re like Mitt paying less than 15% in taxes. The argument seems to be that if we just lower Mitt’s taxes to say, effectively 10%, he’d somehow hire 100,000 people.

    1. The “job creators” have had a decade to prove that their juicy tax cut would result in more jobs.  Unfortunately, no one tied the word “American” onto the front of “jobs”.  If capital gains are lowered further, expect 100k new jobs in China, not the US.

  9. I think that given that they know full well the beating he’s currently taking because of this, the fact that they still refuse to release the information is probably because they see it as worse than the beating they could suffer due to not releasing it.

    And, if as somebody said here that they may have actually paid zero taxes in 2009, there might very well be such a groundswell of hatred towards Romney that he might never actually recover.

    I couldn’t be happier if Mitt loses because of the obnoxious amount of money he has because, in part, due to legal loopholes. As Jon Stewart pointed out the other night: we don’t mind that people are rich. But when they start lecturing us on how people on welfare are stealing from the state, when they themselves have legal loopholes to get out of paying tens of millions of dollars every year in offshore accounts, that’s the part we really don’t appreciate.

    I couldn’t agree more.

Comments are closed.