My theory on why Mitt won't disclose

[jberryhill]

Buried in the reportage of Mitt's 13% answer was the SPECIFIC QUESTION he deflected - It was along the lines of:

In 2008 and 2009 many wealthy Americans had large capital losses, bringing their taxes close to zero, what did you pay in 2008 and 2009?

Romney's answer suggests that when everyone else had huge write-offs from deductible losses, he didn't.

Hey Mitt, how'd you win when everyone else lost?

[99th_Monkey]

1. My theory is a bit different

Both might be true, but mine is that he may have paid taxes.
but not as much as he's already said "I've looked at that, and
I never paid less than 13%" ... so one and/or two things

1) he paid tax, but lied about how much (by overstating) and
now does not want to be caught in such a publicly conspicuous
LIE.

and/or

2) there is a "paper trail" embedded in the returns tying Mitt
and Bain Capital to death squads in Latin America, money
laundering, gun smuggling, or some such slimy businesses.

If EITHER of the above are true, Rmoney would rather concede
than air so much dirty laundry so publicly.

[CabCurious]

5. Both A & B.

I watched that clip of his wife's most recent interview where she talks about how unfair it is to release information only to get more attacks. They are genuinely scared of what would happen to them, not just politically, if all the nuances of their finances became public.

Needless to say, this should disqualify them from the white house.

One way or another, there's a paper trail and I suspect at least 100 people have basic information about the skeletons.

Some of it will come out.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. Shades of Bernard Madoff?

[LibMD]

3. both

shades of Madoff and Corzine...

[TomClash]

4. You're not the only one who thinks this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021124279

[jberryhill]

6. He was grabbing the chips from the table when the casino caught fire

[TomClash]

7. And he was told the casino would catch fire soon

So he grabbed the chips AND bet against the house.