Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

skip fox

(19,356 posts) Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:32 AM Jul 2012

What might tax returns reveal? Here's another guess:

They could well show he was paid hundreds of thosands of dollars, not $100,000 by Bain in 2000-2002.

All we know is that he was paid "at least $100,000 per year."

If he was paid $900,000, say, he's have a hard time saying he had no involvement with Bain during that period.

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What might tax returns reveal? Here's another guess: (Original Post) skip fox Jul 2012 OP

And he'd have an even harder time rocktivity Jul 2012 #1

Even at $100,000 it doesn't compute that he had no involvement. That's a lotta money for shraby Jul 2012 #2

rocktivity

(44,576 posts)

1. And he'd have an even harder time

Reply to skip fox (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:36 AM

Jul 2012

explaining why he willingly took money generated from the outsourcing of jobs.

But you just keep on stonewalling, deflecting, and ignoring, Mitt -- look at how well it worked for Nixon.

rocktivity

shraby

(21,946 posts)

2. Even at $100,000 it doesn't compute that he had no involvement. That's a lotta money for