Presidential Income Tax Rate Dilemna ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Trump -   25 %
   Obama-  18%
   Clintons- 19%
   Sanders- 13%
   
   Liberals don't seem to like numbers , facts and  truth at all ;
   Liberals everywhere LOVE to celebrate the Income Tax stands , income inequity  , and general rhetoric of wealth distribution, re-distribution  in America  ,   The incredibly Biased media loves this  too ,    Everyone has doubled down on the character  assassination of President Donald Trump for being rich . And Yet ;  does this show up  .
   
   Where are liberals when the truth shows up ?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals like transparency as well. So where are the tax returns for the clown with whom you are so enamored? Don't know what it is like in the rightwing world where you are content to be led by your respective bridles.  But, for me, the leader has to lead by example and set the example
      
      The problem with rightwing people is that ANY media that does not suck up to your hero is 'fake news'. The truth is an inconvenience.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That you and millions more are desperately seeking more mud to throw is irrelevant.  The people elected Trump to the Presidency without a requirement that his entire past be subjected to glass walls - they are satisfied that he has made mistakes and done bad things and elected him anyway. 
         
         As far as future activity - that does pretty much need glass walls, and more so than the ordinary person in the street.  But we have a problem in that for the first time in our history we have a President with vast business holdings throughout the world.  While I understand that the Trumpaphobes would dearly love to disrupt those holdings and cause as much financial pain as possible, that isn't the purpose behind transparency.
         
         So how do we require transparency without giving those wishing harm ammunition to use?  Require tax returns while in office?  Given the state of "leaks", they will promptly be shown world wide, so shall we allow only "friends" to look at them and report findings to secret congressional hearings?  Somehow I don't see that as satisfying those that are interested only in how much political or financial harm they can cause.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            It not a matter of throwing mud, you are either in compliance with the law or you are not. Being subject to oversite or criticism is not grounds for withholding information required of previous POTUS. Yes, I know he is not required to divulge tax info, but I am more suspicious as to what are we hiding. Conservative people always seem to think that the wealthy are incorruptible, yet they are worst of the bunch. I don't like Trump, but whether I like him or not, the conflict of interests and full disclosure requirements that apply to anyone else, apply to him as well. You may have elected him but I didN't and I am certainly not going to allow him to convert the Constitution to toilet paper based on the inane concept that HE is a 'different' kind of President and that the minority of the electorate who put him in power knew what they were getting. That is not good enough. Thus, traditional rules and guidance are not apply to him, yeah, right. As for how he handles his business holdings is his business, but if too many conflicts of interest between that and him doing his job as POTUS arise, the American people must show him the door. That is what I suspect will happen in time.He should have thought about all this before he ran for office and I will hold him and the GOP accountable, all the same.
            
            All public servants as part of the job are to be transparent in their business dealings. We are not here to protect anyone from criticism If there is merit to a issue when it is revealed. But, it must be revealed, all the same. I certainly will not make exceptions for Trump merely based on the fact that he is plutocrat.
            
            If Trump operates within the proper confines of the law then the 'ammunition' will be no more than blanks.

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "I don't like Trump, but whether I like him or not, the conflict of interests and full disclosure requirements that apply to anyone else, apply to him as well."
               
               Which is what I said, isn't it?  The question then becomes why tax returns from a decade ago, long before he was a public servant, are being demanded.  The 48% of the population that elected him doesn't think they are necessary - why do you if not to find dirt to throw?
               
               So what is your suggestion as to how to protect his legitimate business interests (and political ones) concerning his tax returns?  Simply give all the private, secret business info to the world in the hopes it will destroy his financial empire?

               replyreport
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               "Being subject to oversite or criticism is not grounds for withholding information required of previous POTUS."
               
               "I don't like Trump, but whether I like him or not, the conflict of interests and full disclosure requirements that apply to anyone else, apply to him as well."
               
               "I am certainly not going to allow him to convert the Constitution to toilet paper based on the inane concept that HE is a 'different' kind of President"
               
               "Thus, traditional rules and guidance are not apply to him, yeah, right."
               
               "All public servants as part of the job are to be transparent in their business dealings."
               
               "But, it must be revealed, all the same."
               
               ""Yes, I know he is not required to divulge tax info"
               
               These are all your own statements, from your post just above.  Can you possibly reconcile the first 6 with the last one - the only one that is actually true and factual?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "Being subject to oversite or criticism is not grounds for withholding information required of previous POTUS
                  
                  These are all your own statements, from your post just above.  Can you possibly reconcile the first 6 with the last one - the only one that is actually true and factual?
                  -----------------
                  I don't care how much money he has or how many he has chiseled in his business dealings. there can be no conflict with his taking profits for his business while working for American people in the capacity of POTUS. As a simple purchasing agent , I could not take a gift or money from those who participated in the competive bid process as their bids were to evaluated impartially. Otherwise charges of impropriety can be raised and rightfully so. Is that so difficult a concept to understand? I expect the same from the President.
                  
                  Yes, Does not the job of POTUS require the same adherence of any holding the office to the same standards of integrity? You seem to imply that Trump is to evaluated differently and be held to a differing standard solely on the basis of the fact that he is TRUMP. Is it because he is rich, and,as you say, not like the others who came before him? That is not a reason to cut him any more slack than anyone else.
                  
                  Let's make it simple, whatever the law requires for the holder of that office, I expect it to be complied with, regardless of who sits in that chair.
                  
                  And you know what I mean when I talk about transparency and disclosure or did you cling to Nixon's perspective during Watergate?
                  
                  Whatever legal standards applyto how the POTUS conducts himself in office will apply to all without exception. Is that what the rule of law means to you or do you qualify that Trump is the exception? As a progressive, I am not a respecter of persons, but will insist that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Now that is true and factual.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     "there can be no conflict with his taking profits for his business while working for American people in the capacity of POTUS."
                     
                     Absolutely correct.  And it has zero to do with seeing his past tax returns, and very little to do with seeing his future ones.  So why the demand to see them all?
                     
                     "Yes, Does not the job of POTUS require the same adherence of any holding the office to the same standards of integrity?"
                     
                     Sure enough!  So where does the demand for tax returns come from - that was NEVER a required standard, no matter how much you might wish it to be.
                     
                     "You seem to imply that Trump is to evaluated differently and be held to a differing standard "
                     
                     Sorry, but YOU'RE the one wanting a different standard all of a sudden.  Even as you agree that it isn't the standard at all. 
                     
                     "Let's make it simple, whatever the law requires for the holder of that office, I expect it to be complied with, regardless of who sits in that chair."
                     
                     Fine.  Agreed.  Now can we go back to the discussion of his tax returns being made public?  Changing the topic to an irrelevant matter is not conducive to a real discussion.
                     
                     "And you know what I mean when I talk about transparency and disclosure"
                     
                     Yes, I know.  You mean total and complete knowledge of all business dealings made public, with the result being that competitors will ruin him.  I'm sure you understand that that's how business works, but then I'm also sure that it would please you enormously to see it happen.  You want to see the bids he receives for proposed work, you want to see his proposals for purchasing, you want to see it all and you don't give a rats a$$ how badly he's hurt by it, except the more the better.
                     
                     "Whatever legal standards applyto how the POTUS conducts himself in office will apply to all without exception."
                     
                     Fine. Agreed.  Now can we go back to the discussion of his tax returns being made public?  Changing the topic to an irrelevant matter is still not conducive to a real discussion.
                     
                     "Is that what the rule of law means to you or do you qualify that Trump is the exception?"
                     
                     But it is you trying to make Trump an exception - trying to make him the first President forced to reveal his tax returns.
                     
                     "As a progressive, I am not a respecter of persons, but will insist that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Now that is true and factual."
                     
                     Oh good!  That means you, and all the other "progressives" will quit trying to force out his tax returns, for it has never been done to ANY goose and thus should not be done to the gander.  We agree, finally - there is no actual reason, legal or otherwise, for him to make his returns public.

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        So who in the IRS looks at his returns and can sound the alarm on the boss to make sure that he is compliance with the law?

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I asked for your suggestion, but all I got was to make tax returns public in a transparent effort to ruin him financially and politically.  If there is nothing better, then we'd best shut up and let him follow the law.  Forget about his tax returns, in other words, because he isn't required to provide them.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              This is not over. You still don't get do you? People are not going to shut up, anything goes so that your man can operate without being held accountble. I know that you like that, but the heat remains, regardless. How do we know that he follows the law? The integrity of his business dealings could be an excuse by him to not make it known that there has been any wrong doing.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 LOL  You can't answer the question, but know that you haven't a leg to stand on.  So will go off on a rant to distract from that, while still insinuating it MUST be done whether legal or not. 

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Ok, whatever....

                                    replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Liberals don't seem to like numbers , facts and  truth at all"
      
      This is a two way street my friend. All you are doing is the driving deeper the divide. There seems to be only right and wrong in your description and no other solution than an opinion.
      
      The news has not only had many fallacies in it's quiver of facts but it also lies to us through omission. As long as it is sold as entertainment with great graphics and snappy dialog we will continue to gobble it up and vomit on each other.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         If to divide  the two political ideologies is all we have in political forums then  that's what we should do ,  When OUR  entire mainstream news media is so  biased as to chose its own truth , to inject  its own sense of  honesty  , to omit most of  or to change facts ,statistics and  even write their own history .............Then yes we should  divide and then sort the many elements of political rhetoric in order to ascertain  the one truth that  we do all live by .
         
         Am I mistaken ,isn't that why they were called forums ?

         replyreport
   3. 59

      Melissa Carlsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      what is this?

      replyreport
2. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   That was pretty funny how Rachael MadCow revealed that Trump paid $38 million in personal taxes  in 2005.  The man pays his taxes, period.   Then, she reveals that Trump really is rich. That was rich after many speculated that he wasn't really rich.  Yep, MadCow's hatred and brainwashed liberal bias came shining through once again. What a fool he is (thinks he is a she), no wonder he is so confused. 
   
   Actually, I think Trump trolled him/her/it and the rest of the liberal media beautifully again, and he is so good it that.  They are so hungry for any piece of dirt that they continue to expose themselves as the low information idiots they are.  I mean really...MadCow didn't see that one coming?

   replyreport
3. 75

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

   "Liberals don't seem to like numbers , facts and  truth at all"  Sweeping generalizations like this one are what is wrong with America, keep us from finding middle ground, and getting anything done.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I worry more about the commas, lol.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. I'd like to point out that credence's post contained sweeping generalizations of the other side. (in case that escaped your notice)
      
      Both far ends have gone over the top, in my opinion.
      
      Where's a fiscally responsible, socially compassionate third party when we need one?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Sweeping generalizations? It escapes my notice as well, would you please elaborate that for the forum audience, please

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            Honestly, if you can't read your own post I'm not sure what to think.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Do you have an answer or do you insist on mere rhetorical exercise? I can't always see things well from the perspective a red tinted prism, so help out a bit?

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Wooo-boy! "... mere rhetorical exercise." You been reading them books again haven't you Cred!
                  
                  You don't need to worry about any tinted glasses, you just need to keep an eye on your vocabulary allowance.
                  
                  You still got 10 more days to go. Keep that up and you will be down to your last few text acronyms by the end of the month.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't need to worry about any tinted glasses, you just need to keep an eye on your vocabulary allowance.
                     
                     You still got 10 more days to go. Keep that up and you will be down to your last few text acronyms by the end of the month.
                     ------------------
                     
                     Hardly......
                     
                     'I've got a million of em',
                     
                     Jimmie Durante

                     replyreport
               2. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You said 'Conservative people always seem to think'.
                  
                  there was more. I just cut it off there because it sounds so much nicer. We think. That isn't a bad thing.
                  
                  But, as someone who has been labeled a conservative I do take umbrage. You have, almost consistently (since the election), not known what I thought and usually put a quite negative spin on innocent comments made. You don't really know what the majority of conservatives think. It only appears that whatever you disagree with must be a conservative opinion; in your mind.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     You said 'Conservative people always seem to think'.
                     ----------
                     
                     I said that in reference to conservative posters here that said that Trump and people as wealthy as he have too much money to be interested in taking more. Consequently, we do not have to worry about dishonesty from them... That always come from conservative side of the ledger, never from the left as we generally distrust wealth being in charge without oversight.
                     
                     If that is not you, then I was in error with that generalization. And there is probably 'more' and I will either support it or acknowledge my error
                     -----------------
                     But, as someone who has been labeled a conservative I do take umbrage. You have, almost consistently (since the election), not known what I thought and usually put a quite negative spin on innocent comments made. You don't really know what the majority of conservatives think. It only appears that whatever you disagree with must be a conservative opinion; in your mind.
                     ----------------
                     Do you consider yourself a conservative? I don't claim to know wheat you think on an individual basis, but I DO know that there are stark differences in the attitudes and beliefs of conservatives verses progressives, or liberals, if you like. Those translate in different viewpoints about problems and how they are best solved. If you lean conservative, you are not going to like what I have to say because I lean the other way. No more than I would agree with what Wilderness or Ahorseback would accept.
                     Most of the things I have disagreed with could be said to represent the political conservative point on the issue in discussion. I am not just being difficult , I am true blue through and through and always will be a staunch advocate for progressive ideas as opposed to the alternative. Because for me, I see them as better between the two. There are exceptions, but they are very few. The policy directions and preferences of conservatives verses progressives in America are different and usually quite clear. Just as clear as the difference between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
                     
                     I only promise not to beat up on conservatives and their ideas unless I have serious concerns about them and then I will offer an alternative suggestion.

                     replyreport
4. 57

   Randall Dudleyposted 7 years ago

   Right here you brother... And that is one of my fears I'm selling my house in Virginia and want to buy a motorhome wondering what State Should I buy North Carolina Virginia with no personal property tax but I'm not sure I am just kind of winging it at the time right now any help is very appreciated and I'm willing to donate money time is money money is time understand immensely thank you for your time and trouble.

   replyreport
5. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   Its easy to see a person's heart when they keep up with the same negative rhetoric toward anyone with opposing views.  It becomes so predictable and is kind of funny at the same time as being sad.  I can't help but feel sorry for some folks.

   replyreport