Ann Romney says they don't even know how much money they have!

1. 79

   Mighty Momposted 10 years ago

   It's worse than we thought. The Romneys don't even know how much money they have!
   Must be a really tough problem.
   Also -- note that the financial disclosure for MA governor was "huge."
   So he did it once.
   Why not now???
   
   Gotta watch the video to really get the full effect of her annoyed attitude.
   
   By Robin Abcarian
   
   August 16, 2012, 1:36 p.m.
   Ann Romney gets her say Thursday night about the increasingly urgent, or from her perspective, unreasonable, demands for the release of her family's tax returns.
   
   http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la … 2787.story
   Ann Romney's irritation was apparent in an interview with NBC that took place during a break in the Olympics in Wales, her ancestral home. (Her horse, Rafalca, and trainer, Jan Ebeling, competed for the U.S. Equestrian team in dressage. They did not medal.)
   
   Romney'ds feelings broke the surface when Morales raised the issue of the Romney tax returns.
   
   "I know it's not a question that is welcomed, but must be asked," Morales said.
   Why not be transparent and release more than the 2010 and the estimates for 2011?"
   
   Romney was pleasant but fierce: "Have you seen how we're attacked? Have you seen what's happened?"
   
   "Are you angry that it's been in the press?" Morales asked. "I mean should you not be questioned about your finances?"
   
   "We have been transparent to what's legally required of us," Romney said. "But the more we release, the more we get attacked, the more we get questions, the more we get pushed. We have done what's legally required, and there's going to be no more tax releases given. And there's a reason for that. And that's because of what happens as soon as we release anything.
   
   
   Mitt's financial disclosures when he was governor were huge.
   
   "Beyond paying our taxes, we also give 10% of our income to charity. So we have no issues that way, and the only reason we don�t disclose any more is, you know, we just become a bigger target."
   
   Morales: "To the American people though, when they hear about perhaps accounts with your name on it overseas, and tax shelters, they feel like you may be hiding something."
   
   "There's nothing we're hiding," Romney said. "We've had a blind trust for, how many years?
   We don't even know what's in there. We've had a blind trust since before Mitt was governor, you know, 2002 forward. And so you know, I'll be curious to see what's in there, too."

   replyreport
2. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 10 years ago

   They both try to deflate any emphasis on taxes and their wealth.  I still don't get how anyone possibly believes anything he says.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know how anyone can envision her as FLOTUS.
      Nancy Reagan redux.
      I wonder if Mitty calls her "Mommy" too.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I can see her as FLOTUS, with horses grazing on the White House lawn. Ya know I'm a horse lover, right? Maybe she could make Mitt do something about horse slaughter.
         
         I've never "warmed up" to Mrs. Obama, although I think the POTUS is a nice guy. She just seems mean to me, and I get the impression she's even mean to her hubby.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, Habee.
            I don't find MO likable per se.
            BO, more so.
            
            I don't find MR at all likable.
            I find AR even less so.
            
            One thing that has not been brought up -- but may after the AR interview airs tonight:
            What are either of them thinking? She has MS and STRESS causes flareups.
            Can't help but compare to the Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards was sick when John ran.
            I just never understood how he could put her through the grueling pressure of a campaign.
            But then, AR believes Mitt is going to be the savior of America.
            So the personal sacrifice on her end is worth it.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I've wondered about her MS, too, but I'll bet Mitt won't leave her like Edwards did his wife. But hey - I've been wrong before!

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh no. I cannot imagine him doing that, either.
                  He doesn't seem like a cheater.
                  If he is, he's extremely discreet about it (like Bush Senior was reputed to be).

                  replyreport
3. 94

   habeeposted 10 years ago

   I don't know how much money we have, either, but I assure you it's a LITTLE less than Ann and Mitt have!
   
   I'd be glad to count the Romneys' money for a mere 5% fee.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
4. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago

   What's the problem? That's the whole purpose of a blind trust. Politicians can put their money into trusts, which they don't control, or know what is in there, to avoid conflict of interest in personal investments and policy.

   replyreport
5. 96

   wildernessposted 10 years ago

   I wouldn't release mine, either, beyond the legal requirements.
   
   Look at what happened to Obama; he was pestered for years to give his birth certificate and when he did it took less than an hour for it to hit the web that it was a forgery.  It doesn't matter what Romney says - they will be attacked just as she said.
   
   Plus, isn't their money in a trust now?  I thought that was a requirement, and if so she doesn't know how much she has.  Even if it isn't, she still doesn't know - people with that kind of dough fluctuate 10 years of my income each day.  Any figure she gives will be proven to be a lie.
   
   They're rich.  Beyond that we'll never know, and don't really need to.  No matter what, there will be those convinced they are financial devils and those that accept they're not.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Some things are TMI.
      She should have just left it at the taxes.
      
      Like her husband, she's tone deaf to the lives of Americans.
      Like her husband, she says things that to her may be perfectly normal, but are inherently elitist.
      Like her husband, she does not seem to "get" why the average American feels they are out of touch.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         MM, tell me, please. What is wrong with somebody telling the truth?
         
         Why does Anne saying that she doesn't know what they have, which is true, a bad thing?
         
         Don't give me any 'it makes her appear elitist' crap, that's just a subjective objection to someone you don't like. What is the rational, logical reasoning for why that is a bad thing?
         
         Can wealthy people just not be 'in touch'?

         replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         What you are saying may well be true, but has nothing to do with tax form release.  Or worth declaration.
         
         If she does either, she's "elitist".  If she doesn't, she's "elitist".
         
         If she does either it proves she's "tone deaf", if not it proves she's "tone deaf"
         
         Same for "getting" why (some) Americans think she's out of touch.
         
         No matter what she does the result is the same - why do anything to satisfy curiosity and provide ammunition for those not liking her?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            That's exactly my point, wilderness.
            What she said had NOTHING to do with their tax returns.
            It's like she just couldn't help herself from going further and volunteering information that was not asked for, is unnecessary, but nonetheless served to underscore the impression rather than refute it.
            
            Direct parallel here with Mitt Romney's brutally honest (but politically ill-advised) comments about concerns about London not being adequately prepared for the Olympics.
            
            What is said may be 100% true. But it was not the right thing to say.
            It's like both Romneys are missing social cues.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               She was asked about their finances and accounts... the questions weren't only about tax returns.

               replyreport
            2. 96

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Huh!  When does any politician actually answer questions?  They always go off on some tangent they want to talk about no matter what the question is.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  That is also true.
                  There's an art to staying "on message" and bridging back to your own talking points rather than answering the actual question!

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't know about the "art" part of it - to me it sounds like they simply ignore questions and make a speech in response instead. 
                     
                     Or maybe I'm just an SOB that doesn't think any politician above the city or county level is still connected with or concerned about people OR country.  Which would be true.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I've got a city councilman and a mayor who are both out of touch with what their constituents want but in very different ways.
                        I've got a Congresswoman who is very in touch with what her constituents want.
                        More about the person and their commitment than the level of their office.
                        And NOT their political party necessarily, either!

                        replyreport
   2. 59

      Niteriterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Out of the mouth of babes!

      replyreport
6. 75

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   Ah, the problems of the rich. It's possible she doesn't know how many houses they have, either.
   
   How bad is Romney? He has the full support of Goldman-Sachs and other fat cat Wall Street bankers. He supports the indefinite detention clauses in the NDAA for American citizens. He would greatly increase the number of troops and prolong the war in Afghanistan.
   
   But wait! That's Obama, too. Four years ago, Obama had the full support of Goldman-Sachs and other fat cat Wall Street bankers. He signed into law the indefinite detention clauses in the NDAA for American citizens. He would greatly increase the number of troops and prolong the war in Afghanistan.
   
   Sounds like the same old BS.
   
   We need to stop being partisan and start being American.
   
   Think for a moment! What's the real agenda. Presidents are supporting corporations, not the American citizens. The last 7 presidents worked for the Corporate Party!
   
   Help legalize the Constitution before it's all gone, eroded by little snippets in each law currently being passed.
   
   Solution:
   
   Research to find a candidate with a track record of actually supporting the Constitution. There is one with 30 years of such a record in Congress. Vote for him! What do you think the chances are he would actually keep his Oath of Office,...
   
   unlike Obama with his "kill list" of Americans, indefinite detention clauses in the NDAA for Americans, extension of the unPatriot Act he said he'd repeal, consulting the UN instead of Congress on going to war.

   replyreport
7. 81

   Greekgeekposted 10 years ago

   As underwhelmed by Mitt Romney as I am, I don't know how much money I have either.

   replyreport
8. 82

   Healthy Pursuitsposted 10 years ago

   Gee, I could count my mon...oh, wait. I'm already done.

   replyreport
9. 0

   HowardBThinameposted 10 years ago

   Running a country isn't far removed from running a business. When businesses hire CEOs, they don't pick someone who is on the verge of bankruptcy or someone who doesn't have much to show financially.
   
   If anyone really judges the Romneys by how much money they have - that person is also likely to judge others by how much they don't have.
   
   The Romney's don't have the kind of bucks John Kerry, the Kennedy's or the Roosevelt's had - and the Democrats loved the last three of those - so trying to make a case of "he's too rich" is silly and childish.
   
   It's better, in my opinion, to base our judgements on each candidate's policies and voting record.
   
   That's just my two cents, but am I the only one that thinks this is getting pretty petty?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      habeeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No, you're not alone. Both campaigns are guilty.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks habee. It's reassuring to see someone with some common sense.

         replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As Habee says, you're not alone.  American politics has become more of a popularity contest, more like voting for homecoming queen, than an effort to actually pick the right candidate.
      
      Although quite unpopular to say, just how many votes did Obama garner as a result solely of skin color?  Millions didn't care what his record was, how he voted, what his experience was or anything else,  Just color.
      
      The inevitable result is that campaigns now center around the "exciting" things, like "proving" to an all-discerning public that Romney isn't a typical American.  Personally, I would hope he's not - we don't really need a beer guzzling couch potato or some semi-literate product of our wonderful public school system that can't understand the directions on a medicine bottle running our country. 
      
      We need the best of the best - someone far above the average American in ability.  If that means they understand how to make money and has proven it by legally working the system, then so be it.
      
      A sound ethical and moral base is important, but not so much as ability.  Morals without ability leaves us doing things such as fighting off severe economic depressions for a decade after some idiot decided it would be really nice to allow people that couldn't afford a house to buy one anyway while being insured by the federal government against default.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Healthy Pursuitsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      For me, the problem is not that the Romney's have too much money. The problem is that they are so obviously out of touch with the rest of us. Though the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's were rich, they made a point of knowing social issues and of seeking out the problems, and they seemed truly engaged in solving them.  I can't imagine either of them being so oblivious that they would stand up in front of a crowd as Romney did and offer to make a $10,000 bet. They would know that, for too many people in America, that would be half a year's income, and they'd cringe at the very idea.
      
      The policies that Romney and now his veep, Ryan, have in mind are mainly what scare me. Those policies exhibit a truly oblivious attitude towards the problems of people who aren't making a lot of money, and a downright punishing attitude toward those who are really in need. Those ways of thinking were not the main push in either the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's decision making.
      
      I agree that the race is already ridiculous, and that the rhetoric is mean spirited and petty on both sides.   That's what happens when a lot of people who have a lot of money can throw it around - again, on both sides. We need a constitutional amendment to get the big money at least out of our elections. We've needed it for a long time, and this election is exposing how ugly and petty things can get.

      replyreport
10. 59

    Xenonlitposted 10 years ago

    I have never seen a more arrogant and unlikable woman who expects to be the nation's first lady. Her attitude is disgusting.
    
    I do not trust a thing that she says, especially since she has actually said nothing of merit. She has only barked out the belligerent and nasty nonsense of a spoiled brat. What is that woman going to do as first lady? Lie around and eat bon bons?
    
    But she and her husband expect to win the election with no real effort on their part. The republicans have managed to disenfranchise an estimated 5 million people and they will do a coup d'etat in November.

    replyreport
11. 64

    maxoxam41posted 10 years ago

    Romney doesn't know because she has so much, that she learnt not to count it anymore, because they possess so many offshore accounts, or because money is taboo in her clan!

    replyreport