Republicans Ask Democrats To Please Leave Trump's Tax Returns ALONE

[RealityNow]

=Conservative;1069674293

First off I would not disparage in any ways how you grew up and what you grew up through.... no try to diminish the sense of responsibility you learn.
But I will say... That is not a stand alone American Story, and it was of and in far different times. I can give a tearjerker of a reality story, and I can add in a step father with a 3rd grade education, but I won't elaborate on such ; I will say... Many of those times you speak of, did not afford the same avenues, options and opportunity even in the dire struggles of minorities and women to even have options to seek ways upwards as did white society during the Jim Crow societies saturated influences, not even in the military and the skill development sectors of the military.
But, to make any inference that the values of Responsibility that you were taught were or are above anyone else, is not something to say nor imply !!!! 'because it simply is "not true" !
Sadly, Republican have an incessant aim to want to claim they are somehow superior to others, when it comes to "responsibility" which is simply not even remotely close to being true.

I don't have a disdainful attitude toward people who utilize public services, but if I have any disdain for such, it is for the wealthy corporations "who abuse" the benefits our system provides and make available.
I'm quite certain I know far more about how our system works with regard to programs and services, because I've worked in the sytem of having responsibility of dealing with such programs and the objectives they pursue to achieve in servicing people as well as the work involved in doing so.

I don't care for the Right Wing usage of the word "Socialism"... first they should read the Preamble, which I've linked to and evidently Right Wingers Ignore it completely. See I do know of the Jim Crow Era when "white society" DETESTED even the thought or idea of any minority" benefiting from the system of government assistance, even in the most dire of situations and conditions, even when segregationist ignorance blocks and prohibited minorities from engaging in the full of America's economic system.
Right wing spin about "Socialism" is straight out of Jim Crow... and before that it was directly out of the Ideals of the Confederacy, who had nothing for people, not poor whites and not slaves, other than work, and dispose of them when they could no longer work.

Therefore, the picture is "bigger than you" and bigger than your individual life story", because America is full of "life story's" and for the average citizen none of those stories were made in "utopia". But to "infer, imply, and even to state something as if others are less responsible because they don't aspire to Conservative Agenda, is a pure absurdity.... Therefore.... let's not venture into that spin cycle, because America is a big nation, and the taxation revenue is contributed to by "all Americans", even those who utilize assistance, because they can't buy anything the proceeds allotted without paying taxes on it. Income tax is not the only taxes paid in America. So, look beyond the limited thinking and consider the bigger expanse .....

 

[Conservative]

We are promoting things that are in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, spearheaded and signed by the US back in 1948: the right to food, clean water, shelter, a basic education, and access to healthcare.

People who don't have those basic things cannot do much economic growing.

Who has taken those away from you? That massive central govt. has blinded you to state responsibilities

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Objective Voice]

Congress isn't exempted from The Constitution. The government (that includes Congress) is forbidden to look at private documents without a warrant and no, Congress doesn't have a "right" to do so. There is no law in existence giving it that right.

:doh I just pointed you to the very law that does! So, now you're just going to ignore it and make up your own version of what is and isn't lawful? The ONLY prohibition here is no committee identified under the aforementioned U.S. tax code (6103(f)) cannot disclose the individual's identity nor tax information WITHOUT the individual's expressed written consent. Furthermore, any information any Committee discovers must be done during "closed executive session", meaning it must be done privately concealed from the public until the individual taxpayer gives his or her written consent for release. So, why are you working so hard to ignore the law when I've provided you the exact provision of law that pertains here?

The Democrats's purpose for obtaining President Trump's tax returns is to release them publicly in an attempt to sway the voters.

Public disclosure may be part of their end-game, but as I've stated above they can't release anything without the taxpayer's consent. They CAN go generic, i.e., make it clear "there are some disturbing things we've found in so and so's tax records," but they can't even do that without the taxpayer first giving his or her consent to releasing even his or her name to the public. Now, they could still say "Individual-1" and that would satisfy the legal limitation on personal disclosure, but to be clear I don't know a person alive whose been following this Russia investigation who doesn't know who "Individual-1" is. So, there's your Catch-22 on disclosure. That said, such a disclosure would still abide by the law and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it.

It's incredibly naive to think that anti-Trumpers inside the IRS haven't already been through President Trump's tax returns with a fine tooth comb. If they had found anything, we would already know about it.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. But maybe it's not Trump's individual tax records that lifts the veil and tells the true story here. Maybe it's the tax records of one of the Trump Org. subsidiaries that's hidden away in a fashion similar to off-balance sheet accounting. Remember: Trump creates alot of "shell companies" to hide what he's doing. This would certainly explain why his taxes are always under audit. I mean, since corporations are people...did the money from those Russian loans go to his personal bank account? To Trump Org? Or some other account no one knows about...yet. I could be wrong, but...:shrug: In any case, it's a reasonable guess anyway....if you've been paying attention and trying to remain...objective.

 

[nota bene]

Yes, once you enter public service and offer to work for the public, you cannot expect to keep too many secrets from them. That's just public life.

This may be true in fact because we live in an era of insta-info, but the issue here is public policy vs individual rights to privacy. And this includes medical privacy and where which line is drawn.

 

[Objective Voice]

We all know that comment "dems don't like the constitution" just one one of the standard dumb deflections right wingers are programmed to throw out when they got nothing.

I think what alot of these right-wingers forget is that portion of Art. I that grants Congress the enumerated power to "right laws". They somehow think that the Constitution spells out everything we, as a nation and a society can and cannot do. Such a foolish notion as that would be impossible! But like you say, claim that some action done by those on the left is "unconstitutional" and those on the right simply stop listening to anything else (or using their brain it seems).

 

[Vern]

LOL!!

Quote marks triggered you? Okay. Just imagine they are not there. Do you want to comment on the "point" of my post?

In regard to the "nothing to hide" thing...it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't. That doesn't justify breaking the law. (which is the point of my post)

oh MC, one shouldn’t sound triggered when accusing others of being triggered. The reason I point out the quote marks is you whined throughout this thread about congress breaking the law to look at trump’s taxes. I showed you they have the legal right to look at them. Your first response was to say “okay maybe its legal”. Now you put quote marks around lawful. You’re not quite accepting the facts in this matter. It’s legal. Period. No qualifiers or quote marks required. Hey, remember when you bragged you were “spin resistant”. I pointed out you were actually “fact resistant”. You just proved my point. You are quite fact resistant.

The rest of your post really wasn’t worth responding to. It was the typical deflecting question conservatives resort to when they are fact resistant.

 

[apdst]

No it doesn't. Congress has the right to see any return from anyone.

Show us the law that says that.

 

[Vern]

Boy, you are really stretching....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Oh j, you found out it was perfectly legal for congress to see trump's tax returns. so you post something about "probable cause". It takes some serious mental gymnastics for you to not see probable cause in trump's case. which is probably why your post was quite vague. Please explain exactly what is a "stretch" on my part. trump's ties to Russia? his close personal aides going to jail? him doing putin's bidding exactly as predicted by the Steele Dossier? thanks in advance

 

[Vern]

Let me put it this way, if the President has no expectation of his taxes remaining private, than no one does.

Oh look, you’re continuing to ignore Trump’s actions more than justify looking at his taxes. Let me put it this way, if a criminal has no expectation of his taxes remaining private then no criminal does.

This is not about justice, its about dirty politics and violating the 4th amendment. Pretending this has anything to do with morality is straight up bull****.

Oh look, you’re still pretending to not know that congress has every right to look at trump’s taxes and are ignoring they have every reason.

as far as your "out of context" whine, I cant say it enough: democrats are not the equal but opposite of republicans.

 

[Tangmo]

Your opinion noted as your ignorance of history and civics.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

"Civics" is high school and we'd like to think you got beyond that. Presuming of course you did accomplish that.

If you did get beyond high school and high school civics you might consider voluntarily releasing any higher ed transcripts you might have. It's optional of course given you (presumably) are a private citizen. All the same it could be informative if not educational.

We'd take you word for it however on a birth cert. Trump graduated Wharton as we know and as we know he failed to get a higher education despite what presumably were the best efforts of the faculty. I suspect His Fanboys might have a shared experience in this respect.

Thx anyway for your consideration of the idea.

 

[ataraxia]

Who has taken those away from you? That massive central govt. has blinded you to state responsibilities

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I am not sure what you mean by state responsibilities. Are you talking about individual states versus the federal government?

I’m talking about government having some basic responsibilities towards of protecting their most basic dignities and human rights citizens. I am talking about not leaving an orphan or a child born to poverty, for example, up to the whims of charities, i’m having some formal systems of support and safety nets for them.

 

[apdst]

:doh I just pointed you to the very law that does! So, now you're just going to ignore it and make up your own version of what is and isn't lawful? The ONLY prohibition here is no committee identified under the aforementioned U.S. tax code (6103(f)) cannot disclose the individual's identity nor tax information WITHOUT the individual's expressed written consent. Furthermore, any information any Committee discovers must be done during "closed executive session", meaning it must be done privately concealed from the public until the individual taxpayer gives his or her written consent for release. So, why are you working so hard to ignore the law when I've provided you the exact provision of law that pertains here?



Public disclosure may be part of their end-game, but as I've stated above they can't release anything without the taxpayer's consent. They CAN go generic, i.e., make it clear "there are some disturbing things we've found in so and so's tax records," but they can't even do that without the taxpayer first giving his or her consent to releasing even his or her name to the public. Now, they could still say "Individual-1" and that would satisfy the legal limitation on personal disclosure, but to be clear I don't know a person alive whose been following this Russia investigation who doesn't know who "Individual-1" is. So, there's your Catch-22 on disclosure. That said, such a disclosure would still abide by the law and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it.



I'm inclined to agree with you here. But maybe it's not Trump's individual tax records that lifts the veil and tells the true story here. Maybe it's the tax records of one of the Trump Org. subsidiaries that's hidden away in a fashion similar to off-balance sheet accounting. Remember: Trump creates alot of "shell companies" to hide what he's doing. This would certainly explain why his taxes are always under audit. I mean, since corporations are people...did the money from those Russian loans go to his personal bank account? To Trump Org? Or some other account no one knows about...yet. I could be wrong, but...:shrug: In any case, it's a reasonable guess anyway....if you've been paying attention and trying to remain...objective.

Obviously you didn't read that law before you posted it. There's nothing in that law that gives Congress the "right" to see private private documents (tax returns in this case).

I've seen a law that says Congress can "request" to see private documents (tax returns in this case). Both that law and the law you posted specifically state that the private documents (tax returns) can't be made public.

You think the IRS hasn't combed through not only President Trump's returns, but every business return that he's remotely associated with, Melania's returns, all his kids's returns, as well as their spouses's? They've had over 2 years to dig around and you think they haven't?

 

[Vadinho]

Show us the law that says that.

Can Congress Get President Trump’s Tax Returns? | Notice & Comment

I should qualify my statement, it has to be for a stated purpose other then just political motivations. If Congress reviews them and finds them to be material to an investigation of wrong doing by the POTUS, I doubt very much if the law precludes them from using those findings to prosecute or impeach a sitting POTUS which would then expose them to the public.

 

[Tangmo]

The Presidency isn't property at all; it's a job. The issue at hand, of course, is how much personal privacy a President is required to lose. The President isn’t breaking the law or behaving extra-constitutionally by not publicizing his tax returns, so spare me your little strawman here.


There is no law today, only your short-sighted desire. Should one be passed, any President would have to follow that law. I do oppose a law requiring a President to disclose his or her tax returns, but my opposition isn’t because I am a “rightwinger”; it’s because I believe in privacy rights. Also because I’m a huge fan of Eric Blair.

You post as if nothing were happening in Trump's presidency beyond the issue of tax disclosure. Well, perhaps also super secret presidential privacy in all things and matters. And that there's only America and nothing else in the world.

It's as if you're posting about Rutherford B. Hayes. Or Silent Cal. And that a big event in your life was getting a bound Eric Blair Reading Club gift for Christmas. 1984 or something like it. Or maybe Trump Farm. Old MacTrump.

That is, no context oblivious. I myself see Orwell as writing about no one other than Big Trump Himself. Y'know, standing atop his wall leading the chanting and stone throwing at migrants approaching unawares. Broadcast nationally. Twice daily. But then again that's just me and how I could see your posts to the thread and topic. A Putin-less world indeed.

 

[Conservative]

"Civics" is high school and we'd like to think you got beyond that. Presuming of course you did accomplish that.

If you did get beyond high school and high school civics you might consider voluntarily releasing any higher ed transcripts you might have. It's optional of course given you (presumably) are a private citizen. All the same it could be informative if not educational.

We'd take you word for it however on a birth cert. Trump graduated Wharton as we know and as we know he failed to get a higher education despite what presumably were the best efforts of the faculty. I suspect His Fanboys might have a shared experience in this respect.

Thx anyway for your consideration of the idea.

Great, then when you get there make sure you sign up for then you will understand all this hatred and belief Trump is destroying the country will be proven wrong. Interesting how you are so interested in Trump's college standing but not Obama's, how did he get into college and what were his grades? Seems to me the results he generated showed incompetence and lack of even basic economic skills

 

[Conservative]

I am not sure what you mean by state responsibilities. Are you talking about individual states versus the federal government?

I’m talking about government having some basic responsibilities towards of protecting their most basic dignities and human rights citizens. I am talking about not leaving an orphan or a child born to poverty, for example, up to the whims of charities, i’m having some formal systems of support and safety nets for them.

Your state has an EPA so maybe you ought to figure out what they do. Also why don't you take your EPA concerns to Russia, India, China and maybe even support building a wall to keep that unclean air from reaching this country.

We have laws on the books now to provide what you want, we don't need higher taxes to fund bureaucratic functions. States and Local governments are now collecting record revenue thanks to the Trump tax cuts so if not now when do we cut Federal social spending?

 

[ataraxia]

Your state has an EPA so maybe you ought to figure out what they do. Also why don't you take your EPA concerns to Russia, India, China and maybe even support building a wall to keep that unclean air from reaching this country.

We have laws on the books now to provide what you want, we don't need higher taxes to fund bureaucratic functions. States and Local governments are now collecting record revenue thanks to the Trump tax cuts so if not now when do we cut Federal social spending?

Issues of how much taxes are being collected, or whether it is on a state, local, are federal level, have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism as broad concepts. It’s not called socialism if the federal government collects taxes, but capitalism if the state does. I think you’re getting yourself a little mixed up here.

 

[JasperL]

No, I believe Trump will have some dealings overseas because he owned hotels and resorts and he goes where the money can be made.

You've just demonstrated the problem. So...nice job! We shouldn't be talking in terms of what you or anyone else "believes" about his "dealings overseas" because we should all be able to point to hard data that tell us exactly how much he's making if any from investments in, say, Qatar or Saudi Arabia.

Those don't indicate conflicts of interest but Democrats will make every effort to paint them that way and leak, illegally, accordingly.

Yes, investments in a country that are the subject of really any U.S. foreign policy decisions represent a conflict of interest, it's the definition of a conflict of interest.

And, again, it's stunning what the right wing standard has become. First of all, we're not supposed to care if financial conflicts of interest abroad EXIST, and if/when they do exist, the new standard is POTUS has some right to keep them secret from the public. Also, if Democrats insist that POTUS discloses what he ought to disclose as a matter of being upfront about his own interests is now an inherently illegitimate exercise. It's not POTUS's fault for hiding his business dealings all over the globe, but Democrats' fault for ILLEGALLY insisting that they be disclosed.

I can't quite believe where Trump is dragging his supporters and the norms for the President. With financial conflicts, he's trying to take the bar into a putrid, rotting ditch, and his supporters are cheering him every step.

 

[apdst]

Can Congress Get President Trump’s Tax Returns? | Notice & Comment

I should qualify my statement, it has to be for a stated purpose other then just political motivations. If Congress reviews them and finds them to be material to an investigation of wrong doing by the POTUS, I doubt very much if the law precludes them from using those findings to prosecute or impeach a sitting POTUS which would then expose them to the public.

From YOUR source:

The statutory authority* for any congressional requests would probably come from Sections 6103(f)(1) & (2) of the tax code. Under (f)(1), some committees of Congress can request disclosure of Trump’s returns and can examine those returns privately. Under (f)(2), a non-partisan career official, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), may also request and privately examine those returns. Professor Yin argues that information obtained through Section 6103(f) can be subsequently disclosed to the public, when public disclosure serves a legitimate legislative purpose.

Nothing in YOUR source says it's a "right". It says "Congress may request". There's nothing mandating that request be granted.

 

[JasperL]

No, go read the law that was linked. It says its illegal to leak the information revealed in committee.

IF the Ways and Means Committee gets the information, and it leaks to the public, it reveals that the request was done to create political damage, not conduct oversight. Agree or disagree?

Did you sleep thought the years long apparently illegal public hearings on the Clinton Foundation for which the most recent hearing was in December 2018? Did you not know they happened? How is this different? We should know about the conflicts of Hillary, hold public congressional inquiries two years after she lost the election, but the Congress cannot disclose conflicts of interest of the sitting President?

Bottom line is Congressional inquiries and public hearings about the financial affairs of a high level government official are not only appropriate they are a duty of Congress. There is nothing illegitimate about them, nothing illegal about them. The GOP released many "confidential" tax records based on a party line vote when it suited them to smear Obama and the IRS, and that was in fact appropriate and legal.

 

[RealityNow]

I am not sure what you mean by state responsibilities. Are you talking about individual states versus the federal government?

I’m talking about government having some basic responsibilities towards of protecting their most basic dignities and human rights citizens. I am talking about not leaving an orphan or a child born to poverty, for example, up to the whims of charities, i’m having some formal systems of support and safety nets for them.

Some people can't fathom what you are speaking of... they are "entrenched in that white is right ignorance, and thinking claiming conservative makes them better and above others"..... all one has to do is read the litany of spins they continue to dribble about in their postings". They have no understanding beyond their want and lust for self aggrandizing grandstanding, still trying by every means to promote some delusion of "white skin superiority though the claim of conservatism"... Their self centered cycle and spins has been evident for 100's of years in this society of America. It's like an incurable Malady of Maddening Delusions of Self Patronizing haughtiness.

There is a good verse in the Bible has good words of wisdom for dealing with such types who make themselves partial to their own vain sense of self and the haughitness they wrap their ideals within and engaging the foolishness of believing it.
Thus so:
Proverbs 26:4

Proverbs 29:9

Again, one need simply be of concern for the "dignity and integrity" that is mandatory in the Office of the President, and any who hold or occupy that seat.... any who place their worship in trying to protect a man, who has insulted that dignity and does all he can to damage the integrity of that office, trying to hide his own malice, corruptions and acts of greed driven vile... is an abomination to every thing America is, what its character as a nation stand to represent, and what it values seek and pursue to support.

 

[MauiMan]

Schiffty is hoping that he'll be able to see the entire Mueller report in a way that allows him to let the public see parts that will damage public opinion of Trump. However, he realizes that hope is fading fast.

Nope. He’s going to expose any and all Trump corruption.

 

[marke]

Where's Trump's transcripts? Or his birth certificate for that matter?

Regardless, you proved my point exactly. Thanks.

Obama could do himself a favor if he allowed forensics experts examine his birth certificate for verification, but he won't so the fact remains the certificate has not yet been proven to be genuine.

 

[Vadinho]

From YOUR source:



Nothing in YOUR source says it's a "right". It says "Congress may request". There's nothing mandating that request be granted.

You are right, its a request. I am unsure if your point is that material to the motion to investigate his finances though. He is the first POTUS since Nixon not to reveal his prior tax returns. Given what we know about his business dealings, his returns could reveal conflicts of interest and potential violations of the law. We simply do not know but my bet is there is a lot to review here. Trump is not known to be a person that follows the law or rules.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Obama could do himself a favor if he allowed forensics experts examine his birth certificate for verification, but he won't so the fact remains the certificate has not yet been proven to be genuine.

Already happened.