Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456 require a candidate for the office of president of the United States to submit a copy of the their federal and state income tax returns for the immediately preceding five years.
"Vote YES on Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456, so that starting in 2020, all presidential candidates must release their latest income tax returns, regardless of audit, to be allowed on Arizona's ballot."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/presid … by=9215329
Déjà vu, 2011, all over again!
Presidential candidates must be natural-born U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. These are the only qualifications needed to be President of the United States! Arizona, once again, is trying to add additional requirements without following the amendment procedure stipulated in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
If the bills are enacted, Ptosis, they are not likely to survive judicial muster.
Makes no sense. It's just a tradition. And a recent tradition. Trump is blowing up Wash DC, and people who voted for him like that. We are tired of protocol. What has a released tax return one for us? Um...like that made GW Bush a saint? Why stop at tax returns. How about forcing them to disclose religious affiliation, parking tickets, divorces, alimony, home price, friend list on FB, high school grades,....I remember back when Bubba Clinton was prez....liberals kept saying nothing matters...."It's the economy, stupid." What Bill did in the oval office was despicable.....and nobody gave a whimper.
Do you want a President to pass tax laws that puts millions of dollars in his own pocket?
Trump wants to get rid of the AMT. He also wants to lower the tax rate. He would make an enormous amount of money if he gets his tax reform passed.
Releasing his tax returns would prove exactly how much.
1. It started with Nixon in 1973. Not exactly a recent tradition.
2. He's not blowing up Washington, his administration is full of Washington insiders.
3. The purpose of releasing a tax return is to demonstrate the candidate has nothing to hide from the public and is free from conflicts on interest. Both of which are very good things.
4. Liberals never said "nothing matters". The "It's the economy stupid" was in 1992, during the Presidential election against Bush. It was only a campaign issue.
5. Everything else you wrote is is just neocon drivel, crying about stories decades old that have no relevance
6. Why do neocons have so much difficulty with facts?
3. Don't we get enough empty "demonstrating" and posturing from our politicians already? More of the same does nothing for anyone.
How does a tax return show that all actions are free from conflicts on interest? Particularly if the President has put their business interests in a blind trust?
No, I think it is just curiosity, often coupled with a desire to find something to hurt the candidate politically.
I suggest that you learn a lot more about taxes before making such claims.
His tax returns would show how much money he would pocket by getting rid of the AMT among his other pet demands, not to mention dramatically lowering the tax rate at the top level.
And his business interests are not in a blind trust. That's one of the many lawsuits he is facing.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press- … moluments/
And what does what he would gain by lowering the AMT on thousands of people have to do with anything? Will you now claim that anything that he profits from (which is nearly everything) is bad for the country and thereby a conflict of interest?
Unfortunately for the hysterical crowd, he is not required to put his assets in a blind trust. Not that it would do any good anyway...the entire thrust is to hurt the President financially in the hopes he will resign.
6. Denying facts is a behavior from extremists at either end of the political spectrum. They are fixated more on ideology than reality.
Read this, hot off the press this morning for your dining and dancing pleasure. Wilderness: I know it's long and I know how you hate to read long stuff, but just read the first half. Maybe I have you mixed up with GA Anderson. If I do, my apologies to you.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar … ts/508382/
About half way down is where I stopped: the article makes it very, very clear that the goal is to force Trump to sell all of his assets, paying truly massive taxes in the process, in the hopes he will refuse and go to jail. Or at least resign the post the people of America voted to have him occupy.
Unfortunately, the article then proceeded to claim there are "many conflicts of interest that began almost as soon as he won the presidency" but sadly without giving a single example. Just another empty claim, so common from the Trump haters out there today.
That was far enough as far as I'm concerned. Was it for you as well, or do you support this kind of dirty, "back door" politics that we see so much of today?
Hello peoplepower73, I am glad my name came to mind, but I don't have a problem with long articles, or deep-link research.
To the contrary, many here would probably attest that my comments are as difficultly long as my readings behind them.
And what does what he would recieve by chieve the auto matted tailor on thousands of people have to do with anything? do you now claim that anything that he profits from (which is closely everything) is bad for the country and thereby
Wilderness: Here is the list to all the examples of conflict of interest in the 2nd part of the article. If you go back to the article and click on the links, it will give you the specifics. It's far too much to copy and paste here.
Below is an attempt to catalogue the more clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest that have emerged so far. The most recent entries appear at the top:
That Second Hotel in Washington, D.C.
That Property in Azerbaijan
That Trump Tower Penthouse
That Resort in the Dominican Republic
That Chinese Trademark
That Meeting at Mar-a-Lago
That Defense Department Trump Tower Rental
That Red Cross Ball
That D.C. Labor Dispute
That Estate in Palm Beach
Those Expansion Plans
That Hotel in Vancouver
That Reality-Television Show
Those HUD Grants
That Golf Course in Aberdeen
That Other Billionaire New York Real-Estate Developer
Those Indonesian Politicians
That Emirati Businessman
That Virginia Vineyard
That Las Vegas Labor Dispute
That Kuwaiti Event
Those Certificates of Divestiture
That Carrier Deal
That Blind-Trust Issue
Those Fannie and Freddie Investments
That Phone Call With Taiwan
That Deutsche Bank Debt
That Secret Service Detail
That Property in Georgia (the Country)
That Phone Call With Erdogan
That Hotel in Washington, D.C.
That Argentinian Office Building
Those Companies in Saudi Arabia
That British Wind Farm
Those Indian Business Partners
That Envoy From the Philippines
How much money has the Second Hotel in Washington D.C. taken in, how much would it have taken in without Trump in office, and how much could the country have saved if a different, similar hotel were used?
Perhaps you can show that a phone call with anyone, anyone at all, has resulted in Trump profiting while the country lost out.?
These are all pertinent questions; as I'm positive you know, a conflict of interest exists ONLY when Trump has made money at the expense of the country. Potential conflicts are not a conflict of interest; only when Trump profits at the expense of the country does a conflict exist. Nor does government payments automatically constitute conflict; as long as value received was as good as could be gotten there is no conflict even if the money went directly to Trumps wallet.
by J@ps7 years ago
What is your take on this Tough Arizona Immigration Bill?And also on the new language they put in due to the "backlash" they have been getting so far.
by Sychophantastic18 months ago
Do you care?This would be the first time in modern American history that a candidate for President hasn't released his tax returns. Is this a big deal or not? If it is a big deal, what do you think Donald Trump is...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
Shame on Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" Trickery Take Action! March 17, 2010House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) shameful scheme to "deem" the Senate Obamacare bill into law without a vote...
by Ralph Schwartz11 months ago
Did Rachel Maddow overhype the Trump tax scoop and should she be prosecuted for an illegal act?MSNBC employee, Rachel Maddow, made her so-called scoop of President Trump's 2005 taxes seem like a big deal, when in fact...
by Mike Russo17 months ago
This is why Trump will not release his tax returns. The Trump Organization is an octopus with financial ties in many foreign countries that create a steady stream of millions into the Trump family coffers. if Trump...
by ahorseback10 months 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 ,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.