Watch Elizabeth Warren’s Amazing 30 Second Destruction Of Mitt Romney

On MSNBC, it took Elizabeth Warren less than a half a minute to define and destroy Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney.

The clip of Elizabeth Warren’s take down of Mitt Romney:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lawrence O’Donnell asked Elizabeth Warren about Scott Brown’s statement that Mitt Romney is in an income category that people don’t understand. O’Donnell asked Warren if she understood Romney’s income category, and she answered, “Yeah, actually, I think I do understand it, and that is that Mitt Romney pays fourteen percent of income in taxes, and people who get out there and work for a living pay twenty five, twenty eight, thirty, thirty three percent. I get it. Mitt Romney gets a better deal than any of the rest of us, because he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks. I think that’s wrong.”

Elizabeth Warren perfectly showcased why Mitt Romney will never be elected president. It took her about 30 seconds to define and destroy the Republican frontrunner. Warren made it easy to understand that Mitt Romney pays less in taxes because he gets — and the rest of the super rich get — special treatment. She also made the moral argument that it is wrong from Romney to get better treatment than people who go out and work for a living every day.

Anyone who has watched the Republican debates this year understands that Mitt Romney struggles to answer questions about his taxes, wealth, and investments. His excuse for investing Fannie, Freddie, and Goldman Sachs when it was brought up during the most recent debate was that it was his trustee’s fault that he had these investments and a Swiss bank account. The problem is that Romney’s answers usually take minutes to deliver, seem evasive, and are never clear.

Warren’s explanation of why Romney pays less in taxes than most Americans was a quick and simple dagger to the the heart that was easy to understand.

The right has been screaming class warfare every time Warren’s name is mentioned, but what they don’t get is that most Americans have been feeling like they have been under attack for decades. The conservative agenda of keeping wealth at the top has made live harder for every other American. Elizabeth Warren speaks to and for all of those people who are fighting to survive. No one in American politics discusses inequality better than she does.

Here’s the complete interview from MSNBC:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Some people may think there was nothing amazing about what Warren did, but consider that she managed to gut the entire premise of a presidential campaign in less time than most campaign ads run in. Elizabeth Warren effectively undid what it has taken Mitt Romney and his supporters millions of dollars to build.

Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, the Republican Party, and their conservative billionaire backers have a problem, and her name is Elizabeth Warren.

52 Replies to “Watch Elizabeth Warren’s Amazing 30 Second Destruction Of Mitt Romney”

  1. Elizabeth, so smart, can’t wait until she replaces Brown, and then run for President one day! Now here is a woman, us women are proud of, unlike Palin and Bachmann!

  2. While what she says is absolutely true, how exactly is this a “destruction” of Romney? How many of you pay more taxes than required by law? It’s an indictment of current tax laws perhaps, but not Romney.

  3. “Yeah, actually, I think I do understand it, and that is that Mitt Romney pays 14 percent of income in taxes, and people who get out there and work for a living pay 25, 28, 30, 33 percent. I get it. Mitt Romney gets a better deal than any of the rest of us, because he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks. I think that’s wrong.”

    Me too! Thank you, Elizabeth Warren!

  4. In a way you are absolutely correct. If Mitt Romney was just Joe blow down the street who happened to have about $257 million in the bank it would not destroy him. However he is running for president and his situation destroys him as a candidate. Many people who work in factories or make under $60,000 a year pay a tax rate which is almost twice of what met Romney pays and it hurts them far more than Mitt gets hurt. the average guy is street looks at that says wait a minute that’s not right and that was Elizabeth Warren’s point I think.

  5. Right it’s no problem except that he’s the poster boy for the 1%. Good luck with selling that. And you don’t know that he has paid all of his taxes. What about Swiss and cayman accounts? Legal loophole but not ethical, not American, and not fair! Get back to us when he explains the missing info from his 2010 returns.

  6. I think the most damning aspect is that Romney defends the deformed tax code that Warren is describing In fact, Romney characterizes such rhetoric as “anti-capitalist.”

  7. “Yeah, actually, I think I do understand it, and that is that Mitt Romney pays 14 percent of income in taxes, and people who get out there and work for a living pay 25, 28, 30, 33 percent. I get it. Mitt Romney gets a better deal than any of the rest of us, because he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks. I think that’s wrong.”

    This is a damn disgrace.

  8. Elizabeth Warren is so amazingly clear and articulate–I can’t wait for her turn in the White House!

  9. Mark if you had actually read and comprehended the article you would not be asking this question. So let me explain it to you. People like Romney made this law and he intends to create or support others for people like him. He didn’t just happen to fall into this tax rate.
    Really odd that this has to be explained to you.

  10. You guys are showing your lack of understanding/comprehension on taxing dividends as opposed to working wages. The money Romney is paying 15% tax on is MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED. They are DIVIDENDS. First you earn the money AS WAGES and pay 35%… then you invest it, taking all the risk that comes with investing. THEN, the money you make AFTER your investment, is taxed at 15%, the rate for DIVIDENDS. Elizabeth Warren is sadly uninformed. Truth is he’s paid closer to 50% tax on his money. This is the same reason Warren Buffet only pays 15% and his secretary pays 30% or more. He’s paying tax on DIVIDENDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Sorry Ms. Warren, but, your lack of understanding is showing and you are either misleading folks or outright lying…

  11. Really? I would be willing to bed ROmney hasn’t paid 35% is a very long time. Thats a ton of garbage. Very few of the 1% even those who are wage earners of those people pay 35%. You pay taxes on dividends at tax time, the taxes havent already been paid. Romney hasn’t earned a wage in a long time

    Your lack of knowledge is showing and you are either misleading folks or outright lying…

  12. If you invest a million dollars and live off the interest, what is the problem with that? The point is he ALREADY PAID his taxes on the million dollars.
    If you want to attack someone for being successful, why don’t you attack Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE (who haven’t paid taxes in 3 years in the U.S. even though they earned over $10 billion AND received $4.7 in tax breaks). He’s the guy that Obama just made the chairman of the Economic Recovery Board… another one of those non-elected, non-vetted czar positions.

  13. Obama has 4 more Czars than Bush did. Google it

    The fact that Some corporations do not pay taxes has been discussed many times over. No need to change the subject.

    What is wrong with the fact that you have to pay taxes on dividends? Is that escaping you?

  14. Your powers of observation and comprehension are sorely lacking. I said above that he has already paid taxes on the money he’s invested. Those are wages. Taxed around 35%. Then, he invests it. If he makes any money on the investment, he pays taxes on that. Around 15%. THE MONEY HE USED TO MAKE HIS INVESTMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED AT 35%. I don’t know how to make it any more clear. And your last statement puzzles me. Where did I say there was any problem with paying taxes on dividends? It’s YOUR contention he hasn’t paid enough. It’s taxed twice!

  15. He may have been taxed at 35% when it was taken from his check, but you and I both know he never paid the full amount of income taxes due to sheltering and manipulating it. Thats the whole ball of wax. What they take out of him is NOT what he paid at the end of the year. You are doing your best to shadow that.

    Everyone with investments is taxed twice, but that depends on how you do your taxes. What about the money that makes money in investments and was never taxed at all ?

  16. It is absolutely an indictment of Romney, since his company was one of those who lobbied fiercely for the exception for themselves. Romney can smirk and say “you wouldn’t want a leader who paid more taxes than the law requires,” but he of course neglects to mention that he literally helped write that law.
    What we don’t want is a leader who thinks there is nothing wrong with what Mitt Romney did.

  17. Mitt Romney does not make wages. Wages are paid to people who work, and are generally taxed at a significantly higher rate than the one Romney & others like him paid Congress to write into law.

  18. When did Willard Romney EVER work for wages? Was he mowing lawns as a teen? Has he ever held a position that was not at the top tier? He started his working life in asset management, and after he spun it off into Bain, he was CEO within years (not decades, years). He’s never, ever had to work for a living the way most of us understand work. Apart from that, Bain specialized in raiding companies for their assets, then offshoring the manufacturing these companies did, where labor is cheap and environmental regulations nonexistent. Who is it that’s showing a lack of understanding, Rex?

  19. Actually the company he worked for invested those milliions and he reaped the rewards as dividends so he never paid that first 35% you claimed he did.

  20. I am amazed by the assertion that paying tax on INCOME from dividends is double taxation. That is SO bogus!! No additional taxes are charged on the invested amount. Only the INCOME from those investments are taxed, which has not been taxed. By definition, the income hasn’t been taxed previously, because it is NEW!

  21. Warren’s terrific!

    Q: I was under the impression that Romney had an off-shore account in the Cayman Islands, not Switzerand.
    Fact Check?

  22. I love this shibboleth from the right (and parroted by Rex above) about so-called “double taxation”. This is simply incorrect.
    The original income has indeed been taxed. The NEW income (..that it emanates from net disposable income prior is irrelevant, it is new, additional income) is untaxed…until the 15% (…or 14% for Mitt) is levied. So – let me make it plain for you: The DIVIDENDS HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Capisce?

    Talk about “misleading”…

  23. You are correct… The original investment money may have already been taxed, but not necessarily 100% of the time it could have been rolled over from something else…

    Now think about this, I invest $50,000 in tools or equipment so I can do more in my line of work to make more money… The tools and equipment are basically an investment with some risk due to the market/economy, yet I don’t pay 15% on the extra income I make with that investment I actually go into a higher level and pay more…

    So tell me how it is right regardless of weather the original investment was taxed or not… He is collecting profit on the original investment, he still has the original taxed money in the investment, just like the I still have the original taxed money in my tools and equipment…

    Make more sense to you now why it isn’t fair…

  24. Actually your comment reflects YOUR misunderstanding of the tax code. Remember that Ms. Warren taught bankruptcy law at Harvard, she is well informed about tax structure. While it is true that on certain forms of capital you are taxed a corporate tax, there are equitytransfer structures (such as LLCs, and S corps) which are flow through entities that do not require you to pay a corporate tax. Further, capital gains (as opposed to dividends which are corporate income) are not taxed twice. So for example, if you buy a share of coke for $10 and sell it for $20 you are only taxed at capital gains. While it is true that EARNINGS are taxed at the corporate level (assuming no flow through structure) this has nothing to do with the gains associated with the change in share price

  25. Wrong… He’s paying 15% tax on the profits and dividends from those investments, not on the amount of the original investments. Profits and dividends are earned by investors like Romney because of the hard work and sweat that the employees of those growing companies put in day in and day out. Those employees are getting taxed in the 25-33% brackets. Romney and others like him get the rewards from their work, and he pays only 15% on the profits for doing little more than simply sitting around and watching his bank accounts rise.

    The current tax structure is completely upside down. Those regular wage earners paying their 25-33% will likely never get the opportunities that the rich have to take advantage of the low taxes we have on investments. They’re living day to day and don’t have the disposable income the rich have to make those investments. They’re stuck in and endless paycheck to paycheck cycle…. which is exactly what the rich want. Out of fear of losing everything, it keeps wage earners fighting for their lives working hard in thankless jobs to cover their bills and keep food on the table. The rich benefit from the cycle, and keep it chugging by influencing government in areas like health insurance and educational financing, which are designed to keep people stuck and afraid…

    The tax code should be flipped… giving middle class wage earners a chance to really get ahead… Don’t worry rich folk, you’ll still be plenty rich. Remember, you’re only paying taxes on the PROFIT you make from your investments.

  26. No, he closed the Swiss account some time ago, when he started running for President, for Pete’s sake. :P

  27. Y’all are graspin at straws. So, you think Mitt didn’t work for his living? In fact he did it in a way that many people envy & then criticize. Why can’t you just be glad for an upstanding, impressive man who has done well in life & wants to share his experience & expertise with the American people? May we be saved from Obama & his “experience & expertise” for one more term. You wish this little ol’ comment would stop Romney. Not happenin. It’ll take more than you’ve got, obviously…dint forget to check the poles next week :-)

  28. No one said Romney didn’t work for a living. He hasn’t pulled a working wage least the last 10+ years however.

    I think you and Romney could always leave for an island and let him rule you.

    By the way, its Polls

    Romney is an example of what the Occupy and 99% movements have been talking about. Rich people that do not pay their fair share of taxes because our laws say they don’t have to. Poor people HAVE to pay their fair share.

  29. By Rex’s argument, if I work for a rich man I don’t need to pay taxes at all, because all the money he pays me HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED!

    Silvio Levy

  30. Thank you for sharing your values, N. I am proud to tell you that I do not share them.

    Hiding money in the Cayman Islands and Swiss banks accounts impresses you does it? I find Romney’s practices: Self First – Country be damned. I pay a greater federal tax percentage of income than Mitt Romney tithes and has the audacity to call it paying taxes. I pay more so vampire capitalist millionaires and billionaires don’t have to – not really necessary for you to spin that for me again, N.

    “Why can’t you just be glad for an upstanding, impressive man who has done well in life & wants to share his experience & expertise with the American people?”

    I am: his name is President Barack Hussein Obama. He has 3 years of experience as CiC.

  31. i fully admit that i may be stupid and ignorant – but i don’t get what the big deal is exactly. yes, mitt is the 1%. he pays less in taxes than most people because that is the way our system has been structured. “he manages to earn his income in a way that has been specially protected for rich folks.” did mitt romney personally create these protections and tax brackets for rich people? i understand the argument that because mitt is rich, many people don’t identify with him. but i don’t understand the arguments attacking how much he earns and pays in taxes… am i missing something here?

  32. How much he earns is not the question. The problem is we have a man running for president that hides his money overseas and dodges taxes. He (legally) pays less taxes than a person who works and makes much less. He has done nothing wrong although I understand he may be getting investigated based on the returns he threw out.

    The question is, is this the kind of person you want running for president? If you consider his background of closing companys and getting rid of workers for his own profit and that of shareholders is that who you want for president.

    You ask a valid question. He has done nothing legally wrong. But is he ethically right

  33. Rex, Rex, Rex. I don’t think you understand how it works. He is not paying the 15% on the principal. He is paying the 15% on the INTEREST and dividends, the *new* money. So no, he has *not* previously paid taxes on this.

  34. That’s an argument that just doesn’t wash. When your money comes to you through no real effort on your part and isn’t a retirement pension or Social Security check, it should be taxed at least as high as the money a person has to invest real TIME into earning. Whether the money used to make the investment was taxed as earnings or not is irrelevant, as I’m sure any winning gambler will tell you. Investing is nothing more than high-stakes gambling, only their choices and risk-taking often impact the Middle Class.

  35. ***Correction: Change “irrelevant” to “relevant.” I was typing too fast and my fingers got ahead of me.

  36. wait a minute, under The Last Word there is a caption that says It’s “wrong” the way Romney earns income. Nobody here says that it’s wrong the way he earns his income, all they are saying is that it is wrong that his taxes are lower than the working folks!!!

  37. I agree with her views and would support her candidacy if I lived in Massachussets and her hair was a lot longer.

  38. Uh, I’d say lots of people here think that making millions by doing hostile takeovers of companies, liquidating their assets, firing their employees, and bankrupting them in the name of quick profit is wrong. Can I get a show of hands, here, folks?

  39. Yes, there are always two sides. This time, there is a right side and a wrong side. Warren is right.

  40. // If Mitt Romney was just Joe blow down the street who happened to have about $257 million in the bank it would not destroy him.//

    Wow, what street do you live on? :)

  41. How would it destroy him? We have thousands of people who do exactly as Mitt does. They however are not published as doing such, their finances are basically unknown and they are not running for president.

  42. I can only dream of making $60,000/year. I have been at my job for almost 27 years, have had no raise in 6 years, and now pay out $300/month more on my medical premiums. I was making $40,000/year and now it’s more like $37,000. I pay out 31% in taxes…where’s the equality in that???

  43. Jeff,
    If you invest your 50K in tools and such, your write this investment off your income, so that $$ is not taxed. That is if your accountant knows what he is doing…

  44. Mitt Romney earned the money at earned income rates earlier in his life and invested it which under long standing tax laws allows for a lower tax rate on earnings to encourage expansion of business and other investments just like everyone else does in their IRA, 401-K, etc. on which they pay lower taxes when withdrawn. If I had earned what he did I would have invested in the same way. Any other use of excess funds would be idiotic. What do lower income people do with their invested funds? Should everyone who has success feel guilty and thereafter seek failure or be forced by Government to give successful earnings to those who in some cases have squandered their lives and earnings? I haven’t earned large sums nor had the money to invest successfully but don’t want successful people punished and those who live irresponsible lives to be rewarded. However, I do believe those with more have more to protect by our capitalistic and democratic republic system and should and do pay more. Returning to tax rates during President Clinton’s administration makes sense since there was a Republican Congress and Democrat President and the rates were higher than now and agreed upon by the majority but with bipartisan support. Mitt Romney obeys the law. Those “grand standers” who have substantial income and assets and say they should pay more, have not and in most cases honestly take advantage of tax and other economic laws and their phony offer to pay more in taxes should be transferred to more charitable contributions and business and therefore job expansion.

Comments are closed.