President Donald Trump’s long opposition to the release of his tax records has been a legitimate matter of concern for people on both sides of the political aisle. Such records are routinely disclosed by modern presidential candidates and the information could prove relevant to some of the allegations facing the President regarding his personal financial interests as well as past business practices. Moreover, the President’s long excuse that the taxes are subject to ongoing proceedings with the IRS (and being withheld by the advice of counsel) seems dubious at best. However, while vociferously demanding such records from the President, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has steadfastly refused to release her own. Indeed, Chief of Staff Drew Hammill virtually mocked the suggestion of such transparency in the public interest. Hammill dismissed such suggestions and said that Pelosi “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.” The problem is that Pelosi succeeded in running for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives which not only gives her great ability to advance her own financial interests but puts her just one slot (after the Vice President) from becoming president in an emergency.
Hammill had to dismiss the notion of full disclosure as some type of joke because there is no good argument for why Pelosi does not want the public to see the same tax disclosures from the Speaker that they do from the President or Vice President.
Pelosi has co-sponsored legislation (H.R. 1) that would require the president and vice president to release their tax returns. That law states that “With respect to each taxable year for an individual who is the President or Vice President, not later than the due date for the return of tax for the taxable year, such individual shall submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual’s income tax returns for the taxable year and for the 9 preceding taxable years.”
Pelosi coauthored a Jan. 3 op-ed for USA Today to declare “Transparency, ethics and unity will be the guiding light of the Democratic Congress.” Yet, this should be an easy way to distinguish the conduct of the Democratic leaders from Trump. While a couple of reporters have pursued this issue, there has been relatively little written about this glaring contradiction in the position of the Democratic leadership.
‘PELOSI’S REFUSAL TO SHOW TAX RETURNS’..
PRODUCES VERY LITTLE IN GOOGLE SEARCHES
I tried several times to google this story to confirm Professor Turley’s assertions here. Very little comes up; just a trickle of stories from right-wing sources. Though even right-wing sources are scarce. Nothing from Fox News or Brietbart.
Professor Turley is surprisingly vague about when Pelosi’s Chief of Staff, Drew Hammill, made that alleged statement. There was, however, a controversy in 2012 regarding Pelosi’s tax returns (and lack of transparency). Is ‘that’ what Professor Turley has based this column on?
I agree that Pelosi should show her own tax returns as a demonstration of good faith on this issue. But it’s odd that so little comes up in google searches.
I appreciate you providing a segway, PH, as always.
The topic is ethics or lac thereof
The Left didnt bat an eye about Bill Clinton breaking a signed ethics agreement with Barack Obama.
Here’s the relevant info.
Thanks Peter for the assist
###
“Clinton charity, under pressure, will amend tax return errors
“Hillary Clinton” has not addressed the charities’ admission to Reuters earlier this year that they did not comply with an ethics agreement Clinton signed with Barack Obama’s incoming presidential administration in 2008 in order for her to become secretary of state. That agreement required the names of every donor be published annually, with the State Department ethicists screening new funding from foreign governments. The charities did not do this or did so incompletely, citing “oversights”.
On Tuesday, Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee’s chairman, sent a letter calling on the IRS to audit CHAI and to compel the charity to amend the errors. On Wednesday, he responded to CHAI’s decision to refile by saying an audit remained the only way to ensure all foreign government funding had been accounted for.
“CHAI has failed to comply with federal tax rules or the ethics agreement the Clintons negotiated with the Obama Administration,” he said in a statement, “and re-filing erroneous returns seven months after the fact amid political pressure is hardly a show of good faith.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-charity-under-pressure-amend-tax-return-errors-173057034.html
Estovir, the issue here is Nancy Pelosi’s tax returns. And once again you’re changing the subject as usual. And ‘again’ that seems to be your only function on this thread.
“But it’s odd that so little comes up in google searches.”
Not odd at all any more. Censorship in the Former Fourth Estate is completely expected.
Google is just following the Twitter Facebook model.
On C-span the other day Wray and Mark Warner began verbally high fiving, thanking and praising Twitter, Google and Facebook for their aggressive attacks on the First Amendment and censorship of voices that question absolute deep state authority. Wray openly acknowledged the FBI collaborates with them by providing the intelligence, tools and strategies to do this, as well as the target subjects to do it to. Perhaps the transcripts are available. There is a reason all the Democrat failures don’t seem to bother Dems all that much and they have the same arrogant attitude Obama had when he stated to the Russians emphatically he would win the election before it was held.
Welcome to a preview of a Constitutionaless Society.
Wray, lol. It’s not FBI that gives Google the tools, it’s vice versa.
That’s now how Wray sees it. Maybe he lied.
1. Pelosi is NOT running for POTUS. However, if she ever did, she agrees to turn over her tax returns. 2. Did Paul Ryan or any of his predecessors turn over their tax returns? Nope. How about Mitch McConnell? Nope Are the Trumpsters demanding that either of them turn over their tax returns? Nope. More false equivalency.
A ridiculous stretch by Jonathan Turley
Did Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell insist that a president make public his tax return?
Nancy Pelosi was the one who made a point of this, not Ryan or McConnell.
If the second-in-line of succession is going to make an issue out of the first-in-line ( VP Pence) and the president disclosing tax returns, it’s a reasonable expectation that she herself will be asked to do the same.
That would at least give her more “moral authority” to pontificate about the tax return disclosure issue and insulate her against justifiable claims of hypocrisy.
That wouldn’t make much difference to those who already applaud or condone her hypocrisy, but outside of that group it would have some influence.
If Democrats knew how totally ridiculous they look and sound, always within reach of smelling salts and a fainting couch, they would never leave their dwelling places. So much drama.. So little substance ( except the kind you snort).
And I do believe Miss Nancypants needs hip-o-crite replacement surgery..
So, Cindy goes for the strong silent type like our President.
“hip-o-crite replacement surgery” 🙂
Darren – I think I lost a post.
Karen,
I checked the filters and did not see it.
Karen S.,
– In the past few days, anything that I’ve typed in the reply box disappears once I’ve scrolled back up to proofread before posting.
I don’t know if that’s a glitch in my device, something in the WordPress system, or a combination of both.
Just thought I’d mention it in case it might be related to your lost post.
Some might call it a happy accident.
Tom, that’s ‘me’. I told Brock’s geeks to shut you up once and for all. But somehow you got through again.
I support disclosing any and all financial interests when running for any public office, but not tax returns. We are seeing class warfare against the successful due to the rising fascination with that mass murdering paradigm of Socialism.
Career politicians like the Clintons craft their tax returns years in advance. Those who do not earn their wealth on the backs of taxpayers do what everyone else does on their tax returns – save as much money as possible. Capital gains are not taxed the same rate as income to allow more investment in the economy among ordinary citizens. People could not invest in 401Ks and IRAs if the taxes become prohibitive.
Many Americans are not savvy on how many times the same dollar earned by a business owner is taxed. In addition, many deductions and investment taxes were designed to offset prohibitive taxable punishment for success. The wealthy also have access to tax shelters, charitable write offs, and other savings. Was it Bon Jovi who bought acreage and claimed himself a farmer to the IRS?
During tax season, we all see the commercials advertising that various tax preparers will ensure you won’t pay a dime more than you owe. But when the wealthy don’t pay a dime more than they owe, for example, legally carrying forward losses, then it’s suddenly immoral.
We all know what would happen if any conservative, let alone firebrand Donald Trump, rebased his tax returns. The Left would howl over every deduction, loss carried forward, investment tax rates, and the like, all while filing their own tax returns using the exact same laws and methods.
This is just political theatre. I care about all politicians’ financial interests, conflicts of interests, pay to play, state of health, and whether or not they pay taxes to the IRS. I do not need to invade their privacy to see their write offs or medical bills.
High taxes generate avoidance behavior, all the way down to the poor who are afraid to earn too much or they will lose benefits, the middle class checking off every deduction possible, the self employed writing off everything, to the wealthy. We all try to hold on to what we earn, the fruits of our labors, unless it’s a charity that we decide to donate to. This is why everyone is examining their refunds this year. Of course, many fail to compare their withholding from year to year, and only look at their refund, or their overpayment/free loan to the government. They are not aware if they made more money, just how much overpayment the government returned to them.
And yet every GOP candidate since Reagan has released their tax returns.
Oh, the trials of being rich!
Woe is me.
Jan, let Congress pass the laws they wish and then hold them responsible. It’s not necessarily a good idea to force release of tax forms. In any event it seems the voters didn’t care.
Do you realize what a tax form shows? Probably not, but if you do why don’t you tell us the pertinent things on his tax form that you feel necessary to know. Along with the IRS scrutinizing his forms take note that when he builds in NYC there is an investigation and finances are investigated as well. NJ does the same when he builds a casino and so does the gaming commission. Those other investigations probably show a lot more than the tax returns.
But what is it on the tax form that would be pertinent to his being President if the IRS has already validated the tax form?
I don’t get your statement about Congress.
Why do you think the voters don’t care?
I have always done my own tax returns, so not sure why you think I wouldn’t know what’s in them. They include an 1120S return
Properly submitted they will show a breakdown of income which can help explain any interests which are concerning, as well as demonstrating personal responsibility or it’s absence. Here’s Hillary’s 2015 return which is pretty damn complete.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs.taxnotes.com/2019/HR_Clinton_2015.pdf
just to nitpick a little, YOU would not be doing an 1120S. a small business corp would be doing that, but of course you might be preparing on behalf of the s corp, as a manager or owner. YOU would be preparing your own 1040, perhaps, the 1120S is reported by a corporation and it gives an owner a k-1.
well the Clintons are not small business owners. as you can see their scratch gets reported on Schedule C and it gives us precious little information about “who pays” indeed.
Who pays is a really important question. The Clintons 2015 return does not tell us much about that.
I bet the Clinton Foundations 990 tells even less. LOL
I do the 1120S return for the S Chapter Corp I am president of and have for over 30 years.
The Clinton return names names and amounts.
The Clintons do not personally benefit from the Clinton Foundation which is an A rated charity by the two main charity rating services.
“The Clintons do not personally benefit from the Clinton Foundation which is an A rated charity by the two main charity rating services.”
Those conclusions can only be drawn because the Foundation hasn’t been investigated yet. There have been a lot of reports having to do with self serving uses of the Foundation and where money actually went like the Haiti affair, but I’ll wait for an official investigation if there ever is one.
Charity Navigator:
Clinton Foundation
Overall Score & Rating 92.40 4 stars
Financial 91.86 4 stars
Accountability & Transparency 93.00 4 stars
This rating was published 08/01/2018 using data provided by the charity on a consolidated pro forma 990 which was verified against 990s received from the IRS.
Program Expenses
(Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs
and services it delivers) 86.6%
Administrative Expenses 10.7%
Fundraising Expenses 2.6%
Charities Performing Similar Types of Work
Highly Rated
Charity Name & State Overall Score Overall Rating
The Clinton Foundation (NY) 92.40
Rise Against Hunger (NC) 91.16
Christian World Outreach (CO) 91.99
Population Media Center (VT) 94.14
Baptist Medical & Dental Mission International (MS) 93.34
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
Jan, what does that prove? It proves that on the metrics observed and reported along with the equations used by Charity navigator etc. a rating was created.
What it doesn’t tell you anything about is fraud unless that fraud is prosecuted. At one point Charity Navigator refused to list the Clinton Foundation because of certain problems it had with assessing it. If the staff of the Foundation were paid an excessive salary in order to do non charity work outside the foundation, though that is illegal, that would not be listed by Charity Navigator. You are a very confused person.
You’re a jerk and a fool and not worth my time.
“You’re a jerk and a fool and not worth my time.”
Jan, I believe that is what you think, but if anyone reviews our discussions they will find that you are a very confused person who doesn’t know very much about what she is talking about on this blog.
I take your comment as a final good bye so it would impolite of me not to say goodbye as well.
Goodbye
Jan, when it comes to the Clintons, there can be no limit to the number of investigations. It doesn’t matter that Republican congressional committees spent all of Obama’s second term investigating Hillary. The FBI should have committed to an open-ended investigation just to show they weren’t discriminating against Trump.
And if the Clinton Foundation passes every audit with a 4 Star rating, that doesn’t matter. A conservative-led panel must have total subpoena power to conduct an open-ended investigation for the remainder of this century. The Clinton grandchildren should be held accountable if Bill and Hillary die before the investigation is completed.
Testimony of Baker to the House. Baker was the attorney for the FBI:
“During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.
“I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.
Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, “Yes.”
Clinton charities to reaudit, refile tax returns
by Kelly Cohen | April 23, 2015 07:06 AM
It’s tax season for Hillary Clinton, again.
At least five charities with connections to Clinton will refile annual tax returns after a review found errors in how donations from foreign governments were disclosed.
Reuters first reported the errors on form 990s that include over or under reporting by millions of dollars from amounts donated by foreign governments. The foundations also failed in many cases to disclose the donations as separate from total revenue.
Though the poor reporting does not necessarily represent wrongdoing, it does undermine the role 990s play in keeping charities accountable.
For example, in 2010 and the following three years in a row, the Clinton Foundation reported receiving zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, despite receiving tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments in years prior.
According to the foundation now, those entries were errors — in fact, several foreign governments gave tens of millions of dollars. Now, they are on the foundation’s annually updated donor list as well as a cumulative amounts of how much they have given since they began donating.
“We are prioritizing an external review to ensure the accuracy of the 990s from 2010, 2011 and 2012 and expect to refile when the review is completed,” Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, said in an email to Reuters.
Other foundations such as the Clinton Health Access Initiative are being audited as well.
In the recent weeks, Clinton — who recently launched her campaign for the Democratic presidential ticket — has seen her charities face intense scrutiny. Expect the scrutiny to only pick up from here.
ah, do you really think they don’t benefit from it?
that is funny. trust me they do.
as for self inurement, maybe not illegal self benefit, but like lawful tax avoidance, that is a fine art and skillful lawyers and cpas can assist and help the client follow the law and still meet their, um,…. objectives….. I won’t say more than that. I don’t give out that advice for free. LOL
They don’t believe facts but won’t credit the Clintons with being the masterminds they must be to withstand such scrutiny.
“I don’t get your statement about Congress.”
It’s a simple statement. There is no present law for a President to release his tax returns just like there was no law for Obama to release his university transcripts. If they want such a law they have to pass it.
“Why do you think the voters don’t care?”
The voter’s do care but they knew all sorts of information about Trump both true and untrue that were published by the press. Knowing these things including all the questions about his financies he was elected President. You are a poor loser.
I doubt your tax returns are very complex or you wouldn’t be doing your own taxes. Since you are all about transparency you can post them here. I don’t think you understand much about the more complex tax returns.
“They include an 1120S return”
Big deal. Meaningless.
Give me an example of something that you believe is on Trump’s return that is not already known and you believe is pertinent to his election. Take note the IRS has audited him. Skip your generalities. AS you can see Clinton’s tax form revealed very little of use, but maybe an indictment of Clinton as felt needed by Baker, the lawyer for the FBI, would be more revealing.
OK, we agree the Congress can pass laws, but still not getting the point.
The voters rejected Trump..
If I run for president I’ll send them to you first. In the meantime, you have no idea how complex my taxes are and your opinion about that is by definition ignorant. Why bring up things you know nothing about?
I posted that information since you implied I don’t know anything about tax returns.
What is the source of his income year to year, how much does he really make, who does he do business with, is he in serious debt, how much does he pay in taxes.
The Clinton return lists all income, sources, taxes paid, etc.
You are starting to create a word salad. The election is based on electoral votes. Had it been based on the popular vote the voters may have voted Trump President. He decided not to campaign in the densly populated areas where he could have obtained a lot more votes.
You are not getting the point. There is no law that says one running for the Presidency has to release his taxes. He didn’t and the public knew that when they voted for him.
You bragged about doing your own taxes. Obviously you know enough to manage a simple tax return and probably used TurboTax or something similar. Congratulations. Teenagers can learn to do the same things. From our past discussions you have demonstrated a lack of critical thinking skills and you are demonstrating the same again.
If frogs had wings ….Hillary would have campaigned in California and NY more too.
The people did not vote for Trump.
I bragged about nothing, you accused me – and still do without any basis – of being ignorant about taxes. No, I don’t use Turbo tax, I use a spreadsheet I designed myself, much as I do for all kinds of business functions. Is it bragging if you correct a fool who talks s..t about something he knows nothing about?
On another thread you claimed to be seeking honest discussion, but always devolve into being an a,..hole as you have here. You don’t know me, or anything about me but your eagerness to pigeon hole and insult me tells me all I need to know about your standards for establishing facts – they are non-existent.
“Hillary would have campaigned in California and NY more too.”
That probably wouldn’t have helped much as the press and the nature of those two states were already deemed to be a win for her. I don’t think Trump could have won the popular vote in either of those two states but he could have reduced hers substantially while enhancing his own.
“The people did not vote for Trump.”
If you wish to say that Jan, then you also have to say the people did not vote for Hillary.
“I use a spreadsheet I designed myself, much as I do for all kinds of business functions.”
Congratulations, you can do what many Americans do, some without the benefit of a college degree. That doesn’t mean I don’t admire how you handle your business affairs. My concerns are only how you handle yourself on a blog such as this. AS a disclosure I don’t do my own taxes. I did them in the past but because the tax laws are so difficult to deal with on my return I have professionals doing them for me.
“On another thread you claimed to be seeking honest discussion”
I was, but you put a lawnmower into the discussion and haven’t been much better since though it seems your wings have been cut by multiple people on this list.
“establishing facts – they are non-existent.”
You are right. I don’t know a lot about you nor can I (nor do I wish to). What I know about you is based on what you write on this blog and so far your performance has been terrible.
Maybe there will be a column someday on the constitutional provisions for electing a president via Electoral College votes.
Maybe there already has been a column done already, but there are plenty of basic explanations on how a president gets elected.
Which, not incidently, affects how they conduct their campaigns.
That information won’t stop or slow down the years-long whining from the hard-core whiners, but it might be helpful in other cases.
The Clintons have been living off the taxpayers since the day they moved into the Arkansas governors mansion. Their returns show that they pay their tax accountants very well. Their returns show they went from ‘dead broke’ to ‘filthy rich’ because they cashed in on and figured out ways to ‘monetize’ their “public service” beyond speeches and book deals. Their returns show that the vast majority of their charitable donations are to their favorite charity: their own Clinton family foundation. And their returns show that Hillary and Bill will have a very large portion of the many perks and privileges of their lavish wealthy lifestyle being paid for by…you guessed it… the taxpayers….for the rest of their lives. But we are supposed to thank these people for their “public service”?? Give me a break.
Here’s what the Democrats and the media get when Hillary, or any other Democrat releases their sanitized tax returns…They get a talking point: Hillary released hers, now what about Trump? When will he release his returns? What is he hiding? Huh? Huh?
That’s the point.
“Bill Clinton has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left the White House, and January 2013, when Hillary stepped down as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family’s federal financial disclosures.
Although slightly more than half of his appearances were in the United States, the majority of his speaking income, $56.3 million, came from foreign speeches, many of them in China, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, the Post review found.
The financial industry has been Clinton’s most frequent sponsor. The Post review showed that Wall Street banks and other financial services firms have hired Clinton for at least 102 appearances and paid him a total of $19.6 million.
Since leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton has followed her husband and a roster of recent presidents and secretaries of state in this profitable line of work, addressing dozens of industry groups, banks and other organizations for pay….”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html?utm_term=.89385950abc1
W, HW, and Reagan did/do the same.
Yes, former presidents and pols give paid speeches and sell books. But…the Clinton’s are in a league of their own…
Remember when they had their legal defense fund so that their supporters could pay off their many legal bills run up during their never ending scandal-filled WH years?
Or how about when they moved out of the White House “dead broke” (with the potential to almost immediately earn tens of millions in book deals and speaking fees) and they actually looted the place?
Remember that? They filled up moving vans with furnishings that they looted from the White House that they were shamed into returning!
Then they let their corrupt pal Terry McAuliffe buy them one of their mansions. And Hillary actually set up a gift registry so that their supporters could buy them housewarming gifts to help them furnish their new post-White House mansion(s)!!
After Hillary’s first failed presidential campaign in 2008, she had so grossly mismanaged her own campaign spending that she ended up millions in debt…and years after losing she was STILL begging her supporters to pay off for her campaign debt!
She and Bill were auctioning off “lunch with Bill” at his office in Harlem. They could have written a check and paid off HER campaign debt with their own fortune, but they chose instead to keep asking her supporters to pay it off EVEN YEARS after her failed presidential bid. There’s a sucker born every day. Bill and Hillary are shameless grifters. The list goes on and on with these two.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-raffles-himself-to-pay-hillarys-campaign-debt/
Bottom line….the country owes Trump a great deal of gratitude for all he’s done for the good of the country – starting with keeping a greedy, corrupt, incompetent, and shameless sociopath like Hillary Clinton OUT of the White House.
Bill Clinton owes us a debt of thanks. By fleecing all these Democrat sycophants, they had that much less to spend on taking our stuff and making our life hell.
Wish they had more “leaders” like Ole Slick Willy!
Hillary seemed like more of an ideologue to me. I’d have taken Bill over Hillary 100% of the time for any office from dogcatcher on up.
Allan, it seems unlikely that Congress would pass a law requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose tax returns.
For one thing, they themselves would be open to charges of hypocrisy, which is the point of the column dodged by so many.
Additionally, most of the 15-25 presidential candidates that show up at “the starting gate” come from Congress.
Even if Congress exempts itself, it is putting that requirement on any member of Congress with current or future presidential aspirations.
That’s a pretty large pool of influential House and Senate members, and I don’t think Congress as a whole would be inclined to go for a legal requirement for tax return disclosure.
I wouldn’t mind if Congress did pass a law making tax disclosure mandatory, as long as they applied that law to themselves as well.
In any case, it’s not at the top of the heap, or even near the top, as far as voters’ priorities and concerns.
I don’t see a strong public demand motivating Congress to pass such a law.
They have to disclose asset ranges. No one who can do anything about anything seems to notice the anomalies, e.g. Harry Reid having $6.7 million in assets consequent to nine years of common-and-garden law practice in what was then a 3d tier city followed by several decades in elective office.
There is no requirement for the tax returns to be released. Until there is such a requirement I would just call the “demand” for them no more than political posturing. However I would be supportive of such a requirement.
So, anyone who says they favor presidential candidates and presidents releasing their tax returns should also release theirs or they are hypocrites. Turley becomes less independent and more of a Trump tool every day. No doubt the president will be quoting him soon.
PS, Trump is the first major party candidate for president to not release his returns since before Reagan, and positive development for which Turley has found to jettison unless everyone in federal office does it. That would also be an arguably positive development but his use of the perfect against the good could act to dismantle rather than assist the trend.
I demand that presidential candidates confirm they have paid their taxes as required by IRS or disclose ongoing disputes,. otherwise I could care less about their returns. including the Clintons. i can see from their 2015 return it tells us precious little.
The Clinton 2015 names names and amounts. The 50+ pages are not fluff and filler. An accountant and trained reporter will get a very good picture of where they got their money and how much they got.
reporters are not very good at dissecting tax returns. i have read false story after story in the MSM about one person’s alleged tax fraud or alleged compliance over the years and the one thing that matters most is:
“Who does the reporter LIKE?”
if they like the subject then it’s a clean bill of health.
if they dont like the subject then they will fill the story up with innuendos and so forth.
the quality of reporting on tax matters coming from pretty much anybody but a lawyer or CPA is pathetic. journalists are often well meaning, sometimes perhaps not, but in either and nearly every case when it comes to taxes just really ignorant.
I will say this, Thank GOD the IRS is more fair than journalists are, when it comes to taxes. but if that’s the standard of comparison, then journalists are not doing so well!
The beltway cesspool made up of both parties. If people can be held accountable for lying to Congress, why can’t we hold members of Congress accountable when they lie to us. Gene
Didn’t Turley just make a post railing against selective prosecution? Now he suggests it’s hypocritical for Pelosi to resist that she alone in Congress reveal her taxes? While every recent Democrat candidate for President has revealed their taxes, some here are suggesting that Democrats are unfairly objecting.
“Add that to the number of Democrats who are unwilling to release their taxes and it becomes clear this is nothing more than one element in a witch hunt, ” Example, please?
Having said that, I think every candidate for Congress ought to reveal their taxes. We might end up with a few fewer crooks and those advancing their personal interests.
Enigma,
“Now he suggests it’s hypocritical for Pelosi to resist that she alone in Congress reveal her taxes?”
Professor Turley did no such thing. He focuses on her because she co-sponsored legislation that would require the President and VP to release their tax returns. She’s 3rd in line–why not her? And, since she suggested it, she should be open about her taxes, too. And, she wrote:
““Transparency, ethics and unity will be the guiding light of the Democratic Congress.””
What about her transparency? What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. Perhaps all elected reps should have to release their tax records, to ostensibly keep them honest? Prevent peccadillos like insider trading.
I agree with Bill H. below about this as an attack on the electoral process. And, instituting such measures would continue eroding the public trust–and trust is the driving currency of a strong and effective society.
Prairie Rose – Did you read my entire post? BTW, Turley did propose that she alone in Congress reveal her taxes, he never made such a suggestion of any 3rd in line Republican.
Still, I recommended that everyone in Congress reveal their taxes, I’m sure you agree given your desire to elevate the public trust?
Enigma,
Whoops! Sorry, no, missed the last bit. I am getting quite a few distractions from my little people today. It is good, though, since they won’t be little for long.
I think Professor Turley singled Pelosi out because of the statements she made. The issue is being pushed by the Democrats at present, so it is now that he makes the suggestion regarding the House Speaker.
I am torn on the issue of elected representatives having to release their taxes. Part of me wants them all to have to reveal their taxes since I am sick and tired of anyone on the Hill getting special favors. However, I am not confident that will actually increase the public trust. As Olly said, is the IRS doing its job? Hard to tell since it has to manage the enormous tax code that is ripe for manipulation. Also, I am rather cynical that some of them would just try harder to hide money shenanigans. However, I lean towards agreement with you having them ALL show their tax returns.
We are in violent agreement that it ought to be bipartisan. 🙂
Note, however, that insider trading is totally okay for members of congress.
Yes! Enigma….ALL representatives should have to reveal taxes and any thing their spouses may be holding for them or jointly benefitting….they have been farming the populace and following different rules long enough…
Agreed!
this would be a good way to guarantee that nobody with a business ever runs again. i suppose you might like that?
Why do you feel that way? Everyone doesn’t operate in the unprincipalled way as The Trump Organization. Maybe we should all know about the conflicts of interests of those involved in positions of leadership? We see how well self-declaring has been working.
I don’t mind business owners running for office, I do have a problem with crooks.
well anybody who discloses their financial matters becomes a target for fraud. that’s why we have strict financial privacy laws.
and people with money have something to lose. that’s why. they will rather not venture the risk.
and indeed, that’s already much the case. successful business people usually do not want to run for office. they often view it as a waste of time and effort and not worth the negative attention. perhaps we as a nation might have something to gain, by encouraging successful business people to run for office, instead of more discouraging them?
just an idea. i’m probably wrong.
Our current system seems to allow, indeed encourage, successful business people to purchase the representatives of their choice, mostly anonymously. The information publicly disclosed is relatively limted. Almost evey Presidential candidate for decades has filed which hasn’t reduced the number of candidates.
enigma….regarding.successful business people buying representatives: Just a few years ago, when Trump was a Democrat, he was the biggest contributor to Chuck Schumer’s campaigns.
You didn’t mind that, I’m guessing.
Again, Trump was enrolled in New York as a Republican from 1969 to 1985, then bounced around from one preference to another over the succeeding 30 years.
Businessmen commonly regard politicians as fungible and people in real estate development commonly have to build relationships with politicians. Rather like what Hernando de Soto said about doing business in Latin America, “You keep up your political contacts at all costs…”
TIAX2. …. yes, thank you. I truncated and dumbed it down for my audience. No offense, enigma.
DSS,
“Again, the institutions which were bailed out were the mortgage maws, the auto industry components, and AIG. The losses to the Fed and the Treasury incurred by the AIG deals were much smaller than those incurred in re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banks and securities firms received bridge loans which they paid back.”
Yes, I am aware it was those institutions that were bailed out. The “whole bank and auto company bailout” did not mean every last bank and the auto companies in totality. I meant the whole event.
Also, what does it matter that the losses of one part were smaller than the losses in another part? it was aggravating that an aspect of the government had losses (re: Fannie/Freddie). However, why should the government pay for private business losses at all? Why should the banks and securities firms get loans from the government? Normal people do not get such perks to my knowledge (which, I admit, may be insufficient). Nonetheless, I have been dissatisfied with the rationales for these actions thus far.
“However, why should the government pay for private business losses at all?”
That is a good question Prairie. Add to that why TARP didn’t go to the right places. The book Bailout is the Tarp IG’s explanation of how that money was spent and hidden from the IG and the American public.
Thank you for the book recommendation, Allan!
My statement wasn’t partisan, just your response. Nobody shhould be able to buy representatives, or justice.
enigma…….ok, so now you’re being non-partisan. A girl could get whiplash following your political stances.
Eveything doesn’t have to be partisan does it? How had is it to accept I want representative government, not purchased by those with the deepest pockets, Democrat or Republican?
it has been ever thus. boy are you naive.
this is a problem that can only be mitigated not solved, like old age
More BS as usual.
BTW, you dumb yourself down, learn what fungible means and realize he is paying D or R.
Enigma,
“How had is it to accept I want representative government, not purchased by those with the deepest pockets, Democrat or Republican?”
I want representative government, too.
Olly pointed out that it is the politicians doing the selling (we politicians have favors we can sell you Big Business, etc. You help me stay in power and I’ll make sure you get the favors you need). I had not thought of it that way and it makes sense to me.
This perspective makes the politicians more accountable, more at fault for selling to the highest bidder our tax dollars, our choices (the lightbulb bill, perhaps), and worst of all our representation. Too many of them are choosing to not represent We the People.
I do not disagree that there is a problem with elements of Big Business/Big Pharma. We can do our best to vote with our wallets in this arena.
With politicians, we can vote and hold them to a higher standard as ‘public servants’.
” We can do our best to vote with our wallets in this arena.”
Prairie, I like the statement but at the end you state “in this arena” which means there is a choice as to when individual liberties should be suspended. How do you want that choice to be determined?
Allan,
“Prairie, I like the statement but at the end you state “in this arena” which means there is a choice as to when individual liberties should be suspended. How do you want that choice to be determined?”
Regarding Big Business/Big Pharma, I ‘vote’ with my wallet by trying to make ethical choices in my purchases. Plenty of liberty to be had in my free choice.
For instance, I dislike the battery cages often used in egg production as well as other ways the hens are treated. I buy eggs that either are listed as humane/free range, or better, buy local from people I know. I refuse to give certain “producers” my money. I realize not everyone can do this, but this ‘market’ is growing and becoming more accessible as more people make this individual choice.
I meant ‘in this arena’ to differentiate Big Business/etc from the political realm.
“Regarding Big Business/Big Pharma, I ‘vote’ with my wallet”
Good idea Prairie, but today the free marketplace has been impaired by the unintended consequences of government action in the healthcare market which is causing great harm to many citizens who never would have faced this particular problem. Not all action is bad but in this case I believe government created third parties, uneccessary middlemen and lack of liquidity constraint which meant that with time one business leader without a conscience would use all these things and more to enhance his wealth in a manner that would not have occurred without such government interference. This is an unintended consequence.
If you look back not that many years ago you would find prices of brand name drugs at a tiny fraction of what these same drugs cost today. I followed the healthcare sector ‘ market place for decades and predicted this sudden rise. I don’t want to go further into details unless you desire.
” I dislike the battery cages often used in egg production as well as other ways the hens are treated.”
Prairie, I like your wallet theory. It is better than the unintended consquences of the alternate theory that doesn’t work. I and many people depend on others such as you that inform us of things that are not proper and how to solve them with our wallets. Many people will actually listen as do I and that changes the marketplace; as more people use their wallet prices fall and your edeavore becomes more successful.
Some of my friends consider me a right winger and one that doesn’t protect the environment. I have an environmentally sensitive property and these same folk in adjoing properties wanted me to destroy the environment to improve the lands value. It caused a bit of trouble and a suit that ended up nowhere but I never did change the property. What I have found in life is actions speak louder than words and those that proposed a certain ideology and laws to promote greeness were the first to cause destruction for their own benefit along with creating laws that by themselves promoted destruction of the environment.
One of the other neighbors bought a home next door to him in a slightly less sensitive area. He tore the house down and leveled all the trees and most of the vegetation leaving a flat space depriving an environment that previously could be home to birds and all sorts of living creatures. I asked him why he did that and responded he wasn’t happy about it but the law permitted him to do what he wanted today which might not be possible in the future when he sold or wanted to build.
Allan,
Also regarding Big Business/Big Pharma, I might also consider fixing how those entities are treated. Not sure whether laws or an attitude adjustment would be most effective in the long run. The whole bank and auto company bailout smacked of a fascist maneuver. “Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social” is anathema to responsibility and capitalism.
“The whole bank and auto company bailout smacked of a fascist maneuver. ”
Prairie, I won’t disagree with that assessment. I had an occasion to speak to and meet John Allison when he had retired as the head of BB&T bank. He stated they had a lot of AIG, perhaps more than anyone else, but that the bank was not in trouble what so ever and didn’t need a bailout. He was told he had to take the bailout but refused. The government explained that his bank had to keep a certain amount of reserves and that number was not fixed so though the bank was not in trouble he had to take the bailout. The government could raise the reserves needed and force the bailout.
Think of how many times City Bank or its predecessor had to be bailed out.
Think of NAFTA. If I recall one of the reasons to build in the US was to protect oneself from nationalization of the company. When companies moved to Mexico it is my understanding that if Mexico nationalized the company that the American taxpayer would be resonsible for the bailout.
Though I believe in a free market system and am totally against socialism I don’t believe in corporate welfare and I don’t believe government rules and regulations should put the taxpayer and citizen at a disadvantage to corporate interests. Socialism or the steady slippage to socialism is not the answer.
Again, the institutions which were bailed out were the mortgage maws, the auto industry components, and AIG. The losses to the Fed and the Treasury incurred by the AIG deals were much smaller than those incurred in re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banks and securities firms received bridge loans which they paid back.
DSS,
I accidentally scrolled too far to get to a Reply, so now my response is posted in the wrong spot. Sorry about that.
Our current system seems to allow, indeed encourage, successful business people to purchase the representatives of their choice, mostly anonymously.
It is fundamental economics; supply and demand. And why does anyone try to buy their representative? Because they are for sale. And why are they for sale? Because they have more to gain than to lose. They are playing with house money and they effectively operate above the law.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? Politicialns allow themselves to be bought and sold because the penalty is not severe enough. A horrible precedent has been set relative to the Presidency (“for the good of the country”) in pardoning Nixon. Another apparently in being unable to indict sitting Presidents. We have established that one man is above the law, and he’s taking full advantage, using pardons as his shield.
law at the end of the day, is the rules by which the ruling clique governs and will apply its use of force…..from the gang to the government, the rules are the rules……and those at the top often change the rules as they go
america has done superb cultural work in mitigating that reality so that justice applies evenly.
our system gives discretion not only where it is needed, but where it necessarily will exist like it or not…. such as at the level of executive pardons. it makes the process less bad, not perfect.
dont get too upset about the shortcomings and wring your hands and cry your eyes out too much
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Not at all. Your comment placed the blame squarely on those trying to buy influence and not those selling it. The private sector takes no oath to our rule of law. On the other hand, our elected representatives do. Our system of government was designed as a check on the latter for a reason. We aren’t $22 trillion in debt because people have sought to influence government. It’s in debt because it works.
“We aren’t $22 trillion in debt because people have sought to influence government. It’s in debt because it works.”
When people spend money to influence politicians they do so where the pot is the biggest. When the pot is smaller frequently there is better use of the money. Our federal government is the biggest bank in the world and therefore the bank that thieves wish to rob. The solution is firstly recognize that federalism helps to prevent so much robbery on the federal level. That is why many of the burdens the federal government has taken on itself should be removed and placed back to the states. Secondly, a lean government that is starved for money makes it very obvious when that money is spent by influenced politicians for that spent money creates a hole in government that is very obvious. Thirdly, a Constitutional Amendment should be passed to curtail budgets that are not balanced. The monies and benefits paid to our legislators should be withheld at least in part until their job is done. Finally we need to set term limits, something I admit I used to be against but now recognize it to be an absolute necessity.
Enigma,
“A horrible precedent has been set relative to the Presidency (“for the good of the country”) in pardoning Nixon.”
I completely agree. The ramifications of Ford’s pardon have been terrible for the concept of equality under the law.
You’ve agreed with me on a couple of points today. Be careful, the trolls might come for you? I think it the most natural thing in the world that people agree on some things and disagree on others. Some here have to disagree with everything I say.
“Some here have to disagree with everything I say.”
Enigma, what you say today has convenience attached so that tomorrow you can say something else. That is what happens when one is unprincipled.
Olly,
“The private sector takes no oath to our rule of law.”
This is true, but it does seem to violate the social contract.
A warning from a proud capitalist plutocrat:
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming
This is true, but it does seem to violate the social contract.
Do you remember this quote from Madison in Federalist 51?
If men were angels no government would be necessary.
The checks on our citizens is the law. The checks on our government representatives is also the law. But because they are in a position to bring that same nature as their constituents into a position of making law, they take an oath that is supposed to mean they are to be held to a higher standard. Enigma condemns the nature of the citizen with more vigor than he does the public servant. I reject that. I’ve learned that if we are truly being honest, we have to enforce the rule of law against the lawmakers with greater vigor than the citizen; certainly not the other way around.
Allan,
“Enigma, what you say today has convenience attached so that tomorrow you can say something else.”
That seems unfair. I do not understand what you mean. I took most of it as a tongue-in-cheek joke that let a little frustration with elements of the overall discussions leak through. I guess I do not see Enigma as unprincipled. Wrong/misguided on various and sundry things, but not unprincipled.
Of course “some here have to disagree with everything I say” is to be expected since this is a very diverse blog.
I’m glad there is at least this one thing, that politicians need to be held to the same bar and held to account, that we seem to agree upon. I’d like to tease out the details of that since there is still some disagreement there since all the ramifications/pros/cons have not been adequately examined or considered.
” I do not understand what you mean.”
Prairie, I would prefer it not to be, but Enigma is not sincere. To have have an honest discussion both parties need to be honest. I know that you have different beliefs than I but I also find you sincere and not hateful so I can have an honest discussion with you since I think we both agree as to the ends.
Maybe your discussions with Enigma were of the nature that Enigma could be sincere, but too many times discussions I have had have had with enigma made me feel otherwise. I have very simple rules. All men and women are equal under the law. Politicians are people that are supposed to care for the people, not themselves. The state should be the servant of the people not the people being servants to the state. We each should provide for ourselves but that shouldn’t prevent us from helping others or those in need. I believe in family and one of my greatest concerns about our society is that family values are being destroyed. If government has to act it should do so to preserve the family and watch out for those working middle class families with children instead of stripping them of everything they have.
Prairie, I should have added that in more recent days Enigma has become more circumspect and has restrained himself a tad.
Allan,
“too many times discussions I have had have had with enigma made me feel otherwise”
I am sorry that has been the case. I can understand why you would suspect his motives since the conversations have gone poorly. Considering his ‘trolls’ comment (etc), he probably also suspects others’ motives. That is very unfortunate for the both of you. Makes me think of the erosion of trust I am concerned about.
Yes, I have had pretty civil and interesting discussions with Enigma (though often not ending in agreement, which is fine).
I also enjoy our discussions, and, I think we have many areas of agreement, per your outline (they all sound good to me; I’m curious about the details, of course). 🙂
For the whole of the American populace, online and in person, I don’t know how any olive branches can be exchanged. I sure hope they somehow can be. Our nation needs fair, honest exchange and it hasn’t happened in a long, long time. And our democratic republic needs it to function effectively.
” I’m curious about the details, of course). 🙂”
It’s the means where we might differ. The most prominent difference is who should hold the power, the state or the individual. That takes us all the way back to the creation of our country and the Constitution where for survival sake there was a compromise.
Prarie Rose – For the record, I don’t think there’s a vast right wing conspiracy against me. It’s pretty much one hurt dog who has already hollered. I actually enjoy many of the “running disagreements” I have with some here. The ones without redeeming value, I could count on two fingers.
Olly,
I wish there were more Reply options–this is getting tricky to follow. 🙂
“Do you remember this quote from Madison in Federalist 51?
If men were angels no government would be necessary.”
Yes, great quote.
“Enigma condemns the nature of the citizen with more vigor than he does the public servant.”
As this conversation has unfolded, I wonder whether he may have considered this point of holding politicians to a higher standard and reevaluated how he presents his argument. Based on his condemnation of Nixon, I suspect you may not be too far from agreement. There may slight nuances of disagreement that could be ironed out with sufficient examination.
It seems that there are two arguments twisted together in this overall conversation. Enigma is concerned about two fronts–corrupt/bought politicians, and, potentially corrupt businessmen doing the selling. These should be separate discussions.
“if we are truly being honest, we have to enforce the rule of law against the lawmakers with greater vigor than the citizen; certainly not the other way around.”
Absolutely agree with you. We have the foxes guarding the hen house because we have not adequately followed this truism.
Enigma is concerned about two fronts–corrupt/bought politicians, and, potentially corrupt businessmen doing the selling.
First of all, the businessman is buying. He wouldn’t be looking to buy if there wasn’t something he believed was for sale. The politician is selling because he knows buyers want what he has to sell. Should we condemn the buyer or the seller?
Olly,
“First of all, the businessman is buying. He wouldn’t be looking to buy if there wasn’t something he believed was for sale. The politician is selling because he knows buyers want what he has to sell. Should we condemn the buyer or the seller?”
Thank you for the clarification. I had not thought about it that way. The politician (the seller) should get the bulk of the condemnation.
Allan,
“The most prominent difference is who should hold the power, the state or the individual.”
I’d like it right on the border between Order and Chaos. 🙂
“I’d like it right on the border between Order and Chaos. 🙂”
Great answer Prairie. 🙂 🙂 🙂 That leaves a wide open field.
Trade-offs and unintended consequences: What individual liberty are you willing to trade off for the increased stability (not guaranteed) of the state? Think about what is most important to you and therefore what you want our federal government to place its priority on.That represents a trade-off of individual liberty but might lead to more order and less chaos but only if no unintended consequences intervene and unintended consequences almost alway do.
Allan,
Always good to chat with you. Walking the tightrope of liberty requires a great deal of awareness, concentration, and thoughtfulness, all of which need greater attention today. I am glad you, and others here, are applying all three.
“Walking the tightrope of liberty requires a great deal of awareness, concentration, and thoughtfulness, all of which need greater attention today.”
Prairie, we need attention to more than that because the Road to Serfdom is a slippery road and sometimes not seen until after the fact when reversing it causes great upheavals and pain. Better to think in advance than to let gravity take you down the slippery road. Thinking in advance means understanding the trade-offs and then anticipating the unintended consequences. Many things are presented to us as perfect solutions and compared to imperfect solutions that could be made better. The comparison is phony as one has the possible results of a brand new “perfect” plan being compared to the most negative viewpoint of the alternative. In reality the immediate outcome of both might be near equal but unintended consequences of this brand new slippery plan might be intolerable if recognized early, and worse if only recognized too late.
Therefore your job is not complete. In advance to your wise words above you should be looking at what is being advocated and judge it not in its pure form but judge it based on reality. Then compare it to the alternative whose unintended consequences are already known. Once that is done one has to recognize that the unintended consequences that could exist just aren’t worth taking that slide into serfdom.
In fact the person who wrote the Road to Serfdom in the late 1940’s wasn’t recommending no government action for those in need rather he was recommending the action that least affected the marketplace. That is pretty smart because it solves the problems of the needy using government without ending up on the wrong side of the slippery slope and thereby avoiding most of the suffering brought by unintended consequences.
When you are ready I would like to hear a few of the most important things you want from government so that one can compare the solutions. I’m not pressing you now because I see that your earlier response indicated a bit of discomfort. If so at least think about what I am trying to say.
Enigma,
“I actually enjoy many of the “running disagreements” I have with some here.”
Me, too. Especially when we occasionally discover we can find some degree of consensus! 😉
I just hear an interesting anecdote about G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw. They were in many ways polar opposites, but they loved each other’s company. They loved a good argument over a cup of tea and could hardly wait for an opportunity to debate. It was refreshing to hear of these great men vehemently disagreeing with one another with good humor and respect for the other intact.
Cheers!
Allan,
“I see that your earlier response indicated a bit of discomfort.”
No discomfort. Not sure how I gave that impression. Sorry. I am pressed for time, juggling 4 kids and their activities. 🙂
“Prairie, we need attention to more than that because the Road to Serfdom is a slippery road and sometimes not seen until after the fact when reversing it causes great upheavals and pain.”
Hayek was prescient. Too bad his words were not heeded in the 1940s. I found Road to Serfdom to be challenging reading, so it is unfortunately no wonder it was not heeded. People on both sides of the aisle did not get it because they did not read it well. Heck, I still haven’t quite finished it. His commentary on corporatism and how it would develop is right, though.
“Many things are presented to us as perfect solutions and compared to imperfect solutions that could be made better. The comparison is phony as one has the possible results of a brand new “perfect” plan being compared to the most negative viewpoint of the alternative. In reality the immediate outcome of both might be near equal but unintended consequences of this brand new slippery plan might be intolerable if recognized early, and worse if only recognized too late.”
E.g., No Child Left Behind. The monstrosity.
“Therefore your job is not complete. In advance to your wise words above you should be looking at what is being advocated and judge it not in its pure form but judge it based on reality. Then compare it to the alternative whose unintended consequences are already known.”
The thoughtfulness I noted as necessary. (I did not mean the kind of thoughtfulness associated with interpersonal relationships.) 🙂 Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.
“When you are ready I would like to hear a few of the most important things you want from government so that one can compare the solutions.”
Are you looking for smaller examples or overarching ideals? Federal, state, and/or local? Are you looking for my philosophy on what the government could be?
Not sure I’m up to the task. Still cleaning my room and sorting myself out, so to speak. 😉
Here it goes…
One area:
Education is a very important element in the life of a community. It helps define a community and helps bring disparate people together, strengthening the bonds between people. In the best sense, it is a locale of a common goal–the upbringing of a community’s children. Thus, it should be funded by the community.
The goal should be for the community’s children to be educated publicly. I want to have a say in how my children are educated. I would not be able to do this as well if it was a private entity; I’d have to take my money elsewhere, which, if choices are limited, can be problematic. However, I do recognize that when this part of the social contract really has failed, then vouchers can have a legitimate part to play. I would not want them to be the norm by any means. (By the way, I homeschool and have kids in the public school.)
Since many school districts just do not have an adequate tax base, I do think there is a place for the Federal and State governments providing funds to help communities provide for children’s education. However, it should be left to said communities to decide how it should be spent without it being tied to test scores. Test scores are meant to be a dipstick to see how students/overall school are doing educationally–not a means to an end! Scores should be data to help inform decision makers on ways to improve or areas that need addressed. Saying kids earn certain test scores does not constitute any kind of real education. High scores might be a marker of a great education or they might be markers of teaching to the test. Such an education does not an educated citizen make.
Locally-controlled education is best because the people within a community knows its own needs best. And, local control allows for easier improvement by the community. Recommendations can come from colleges and the State and Federal government, but I do not think they should mandate much of anything.
This is turning into a word wall so I’d best stop. 🙂
Prairie, 4 children make you a busy mom and quite different from the nihilistic crazies out there that will do everything they can to make life difficult for them. I hope the place you live has been spared so the children can go outside and play without fear.
Yes, Hayek was a bit difficult but prescient. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell are always out there along with a good number of others.
“Are you looking for my philosophy on what the government could be?”
I was looking for what you wanted out of government that is led by a president who splits control with Congress and the judiciary. I think that would represent your philosophy of government better than choosing political parties. In the case of education you actually chose less federal government ( a more conservative approach) with state and local control over how to educate your kids (federalism). One of my employees who didn’t seem the most academically inclined home schooled her kids and did fantastic. Some find homeschooling a near criminal act and would like to tell you what to do and not to do.
Local school determination seems to be one of your top priorities and I agree.
Basically what I was asking (and you gave one fine answer) was for you to say Mr. President (no matter which one he should be) This is what I need and this is what I want out of your administration. That should be the discussion at hand.
Allan,
“I was looking for what you wanted out of government that is led by a president who splits control with Congress and the judiciary. I think that would represent your philosophy of government better than choosing political parties.”
That would take far too much space, in some sense, to achieve clarity on the many facets of the government. I have never voted along party lines and have voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. I try to vote based on the platforms, though, I cannot always achieve this and end up making my best guess sometimes.
I want the president to not be partisan to the degree that can be achieved by a person. I want him to consider the merits of legislation fairly and consider the consequences (fallout?) in light of the fact he is the leader of all of us, not just his original party. He should try to be thrifty, or at least remind the House that they should be (as we ourselves should do by reminding our Reps). Allowing the debt to continue to build is not a good long-term strategy. It is the People’s money they are spending in any case. Are they being good stewards?
He in particular should be looking out for the common good, looking to the Bill of Rights to keep legislation and his leadership of the Executive Branch in check.
He should say what he means and mean what he says.
He has the bully pulpit. He should voice a vision of America as a place where individuals can thrive but where we the people also have a civic duty to one another through our communities to make this the best place in the world to live.
I want our Congress to do much of the same. We all need to live together. How best can we do that so there is a healthy balance between the individual and the community, rights and responsibility? Partisanship, gerrymandering, refusal to negotiate, demeaning one another has no place in a representative democracy. They are all supposed to be public servants, not serving themselves. The President should perhaps remind them of their duty.
That’s some. Yikes, and that’s only on domestic leadership. I do not have a strong perspective on foreign policy/leadership at the moment. It is more complicated, in some ways.
I hope it makes sense since it was written in between my duties. 🙂
Prairie, let me reword the question, what specific things would you like today’s President to advocate and push forward? Where would you like this President to reverse a policy that he is promoting? I’m talking about important things that have long lasting effects on the American people. I would ask the same question if this was the prior President or a future President. I recognize that no President can satisfy all my needs nor will any President have identical beliefs with mine. Every President is a compromise just like the Constitution.
You indicate thrifty which I think we all agree on but then when it comes to specific policy suggestions we all tend to add to the deficit. I guess that is why we have to be careful with our suggestions.
You promote the Bill of Rights which is of great importance as is the Constitution.
It seems we have a lot of agreement and probably want similar policies if we think them out carefully. I left the President out of this intentionally even though I believe he agrees with much of this.
Allan,
Before I can give you a good answer, I must first read the strategic plans of at least one of Trump’s policy goals. This may may take til tonight at the earliest. Stay tuned. 🙂
Prairie, I’ll stay tuned but don’t take any time away from the kids. I am sort of jealous. If you had five I would be even more jealous.
Allan,
I read ” CHARTING A COURSE FOR SUCCESS: AMERICA’S STRATEGY FOR STEM EDUCATION” put out by the WH in Dec 2018.
I tore it apart, but decided my review did not quite answer your questions, so I’ll spare you my detailed assessment beyond it was a terribly mixed bag.
The short version: there was a great deal of Federal overreach, even going so far as to recommend universities use its STEM policy for guidelines and education instead of universities leading the way. Also, some of the statistics seemed possibly skewed.
I was also surprised to see ridiculous assertions about how certain minorities are underrepresented in STEM fields, possibly due to implicit bias (though lack of broadband and other such resources was mentioned). Nevermind any other factors like terrible widespread drug and alcohol abuse, broken families, poverty, possible cultural attitudes about education, and the affect of differing interests on participation. Also, how are groups considered ‘underrepresented’–who gets to decide? Why is percent of population the right metric?
Some of the programs may be good, but should it be the role of the Federal government to lead or guide such things?
I will have to more thoroughly address you questions, hopefully tomorrow. I do wonder, though, to what degree he should be leading the charge. Why his policies? Shouldn’t it be what people bring to Congressmen as issues that are beyond a single state’s purview? Downstream pollution, for instance. I do think the opioid epidemic would count. I’ll have to think about this a bit more.
“what specific things would you like today’s President to advocate and push forward?”
Where would you like this President to reverse a policy that he is promoting?
Prairie look at all the names involved in producing that report. Success doesn’t come from top down. It is built organically and destroyed very easily by the top down approach.
You have already made it quite clear that education starts at the local level and that no one should be preventing families from homeschooling their own children. Your understanding of how ridiculous many assertions are on this subject is unquestioned in my mind. That is an area where we seem to be in complete agreement of the problem and the cure even though our politics might differ.
What has been documented by (if I remember correctly) Malcomb Gladwell in David and Goliath is that smart black students that get into schools through affirmative action frequently have great difficulty because they weren’t properly prepared for the institution they entered. Had they entered another top school by normal means they would likely have excelled with more confidence and more enjoyment.
Allan,
“what specific things would you like today’s President to advocate and push forward?”
Where would you like this President to reverse a policy that he is promoting?”
I included my assessment of the STEM policy, in part, because it essentially promotes the idea that certain ‘groups’ are ‘underrepresented’ in STEM fields due to implicit bias. He should not be promoting this pernicious idea. I found that document linked from the Issues dropdown on the WH webpage, so it has his approval. Somehow I do not think he knows all that is in that document. He is a busy man, so there is no way he can read everything published with his seal of approval. Nonetheless, such shallow analyses regarding why certain groups do not participate at the same rate in certain fields is not worthy of what I thought was his high regard for merit, ‘group identity’ be damned. If you were good enough for a job, he wanted you hired.
The promotion of a victimization ideology is not something I would ever think he’d promote. Such things should have that kind of nonsense scratched out.
Immigration
I approve of building a wall along most areas of the border (barring natural barriers). We are a nation of laws and the laws should be enforced. That said, if there are problems with the laws, they should be improved/updated.
In conjunction with this, he should also be advocating for real immigration reform. It should not take law-abiding prospective US citizens as much as decades to become naturalized. If I was a naturalized citizen, I would be furious at the floating of amnesty for illegal immigrants and the complete lack of interest on the part of Congress to address the issues surrounding immigration and naturalization.
On a related note, I have not sufficiently paid attention to the H1B (?) Visa concerns (most notably with now former Disney employees). Has that been fixed? American citizens should have priority in American jobs..
Infrastructure
I did hear, quite awhile ago now, a rather good speech by President Trump about infrastructure. Camille Paglia even noted it.
What is the progress toward helping states replace/rebuild aging bridges and municipal services? I do think states need to look to their own financial choices and address any loose or foolish budgeting. However, these things do need to be addressed, and some states/cities may not have the resources to effectively address these issues (my area is not very well-to-do and there is a little bridge near my house that has essentially had a bandaid for at least a year now).
I have not heard much (or seen much in my area) about such progress. Of course, the MSM does not help advertise progress of any kind; they’d rather talk about hookers, strippers, and Russians.
I do intend to add to this short list and try to better answer your questions. It is late, though. Goodnight. 🙂
Excellent suggestions Prairie. I don’t think Trump wants the federal government controlling local education nor does he want to place young people in places that destroy their confidence. I think we agree education is more of a local thing rather than a federal thing.
Wall and immigration reform were part of his major campaign promises and he has been working hard to keep those promises. There are and were loads of immigrants in my family and among the living they think illegal immigration is crazy. One of my closest relatives crossed fields that were mined and lived in a tent hoping to get to America which finally happened quite awhile later. That relative’s life was 100% in danger and that relative had actually taken out secret documents for use by the west’s security forces for their own protection and could have been shot for that offense. That relative had already been in jail where she came from for repressive reasons yet that relative had to wait and then be certified and then have a medical before being permitted to enter the nation. Now as a citizen when she leaves and returns she kisses the ground. We do not have any disagreement with Trump on immigration.
Infrastructure: I think all three of us agree with his position to fix the infrastructure and my understanding is he is doing so on some security concerns such as hardening our electric grid. He is being hamstrung on every side by Democrats who just want him to lose even at the expense of America. He is also hamstrung by many Republicans that want the status quo and didn’t do what they should have done when had both Houses. The media is complicit with those two forces and therefore neglects to discuss the positives of Trump while making up a lot of negatives.
So far the three of us you, Trump and I seem to be aligned.
Don’t spend too much time away from the kids for this blog that amounts to very little.
Allan,
Do not worry. I mostly read and write after the kids’ bedtime and in-between waiting to pick kids up from activities or while they have their own playtime or doing schoolwork and do not need my help. I do not have to play every Enchanted Forest game. 🙂
Why would you be jealous if I had 5 kids, out of curiosity?
Several other thoughts:
NCLB
One thing came to mind that the President should encourage Congress to repeal: No Child Left Behind. I would argue that this law led to high-stakes testing and lowering the educational bar (to make it appear scores were improving), as well as paved the way for Common Core.
Student Loans
I also have concerns about student loans. While students chose to get deeply into debt for college, it is detrimental to our economy to have so many young people burdened by huge amounts of debt. Federal student loan programs ought to be examined to address this issue. America’s young people should not be so badly burdened by personal debt as well as the collective debt created by their elders. This is not a good long run strategy.
Sorry I do not have more to share. I am remiss for not being more closely attuned to the Federal government’s activities at the moment. I also have a tendency to take to heart JFK’s words: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
“Why would you be jealous if I had 5 kids, out of curiosity?”
I was jealous with 4 and more jealous with 5. I wanted as many kids as possible. You stated you liked what JFK said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The best thing one can do is have lots of children and bring them up right. When one starts thinking how to bring up strong families with respectful and well rounded children one realizes how the Democratic Party negatively impacts the family. Actually the philosophy of that statement though it is appealing is wrong. Government is supposed to serve the people not the people serving the government. However, one can look at the statement as doing good.
NCLB No child left behind leads to NCGA No child gets ahead. I don’t think Trump likes this policy and wants education taken care of at the local level where it belongs. Washington has destroyed many schools. In fact it caused the destruction of the best school in Washington D.C. where black kids were getting one of the best educations in the country. Maybe the left figured if they destroyed all the schools where black children go they will remain on the Democratic plantation.
If you like to read you might want to pick up one of Thomas Sowell’s books on a subject that sounds interesting, maybe education . It wil be an eye opener. He explains the subjects easily and fairly using data that is well accepted and doesn’t fool around with the numbers. His own life is interesting to read because he is black and says that had he been born later he never would have been able to make it. He is in his 80’s so he can explain the Great Society and all the bad things that happened from it including how education for blacks took a dive.
The student loan and higher education system is crazy and should never be. We are selling an overpriced service and actually ripping off the young. We are providing the young a lot less than they should be getting and not adequately preparing them for the real world. We are also creating an environment that stunts their growth and turns them into babies. The Democrats answer is to pay them off to gain more voters. I think Trump’s approach would be to solve the problem.
You sound like you agree with much that Trump believes so though I don’t think you like him maybe you should separate personality from what he is actually doing. Look at all the recent presidents. They didn’t keep their promises. Trump is keeping his or trying his best
Allan,
“Actually the philosophy of that statement though it is appealing is wrong. Government is supposed to serve the people not the people serving the government. However, one can look at the statement as doing good.”
Yes, that is a complicated statement. You are right, government is supposed to serve the people; it is the mechanism for making a place a good and free place to live.
I have thought of the phrase as essentially saying, ‘do not treat the country as your feeding trough and ATM machine,’ instead, how can you be a participant, since it is a government of We the People. If you see a problem, one that can be addressed by the government or not, try to solve it–through the church or your own goodwill.
“Maybe the left figured if they destroyed all the schools where black children go they will remain on the Democratic plantation.”
I do not think the predominance of Democrats think about education and minorities in this way. They may not think about the likely outcomes of their interventions sufficiently.
NCLB was one of Bush’s original abominations, if I recall. He had more than his fair share of rotten achievements. The man liked to grow government almost as much as Democrats. (NCLB, CPSIA, TARP, Patriot Act, and my cynicism about the Iraq war and the surrounding issues runs very deep).
“You sound like you agree with much that Trump believes so though I don’t think you like him maybe you should separate personality from what he is actually doing.”
Yes, he is trying to keep his promises. He is a very complicated individual. I do not like his obnoxious public persona. Based on Scott Adams assessment, I suspect this is a persona, an image he controls very carefully. I am not sure about him because of some of these contradictions. As a former English teacher, I find him to be a fascinating character. I have not been able to figure him out fully.
I do recognize there are some things I do agree with him on. And, I am extremely happy he is in the White House and NOT Hillary Clinton.
“I have thought of the phrase as essentially saying, ‘do not treat the country as your feeding trough and ATM machine,’”
A good alternative way of looking at that JFK statement.
“I do not think the predominance of Democrats think about education and minorities in this way. They may not think about the likely outcomes of their interventions sufficiently.”
Prairie, they don’t and in the process have destroyed the black family which was always relatively strong. They have destroyed our children and contributed to drug use and thus the death of 72,000 Americans per year and rising. They destroyed the school system and the education process, but this destruction didn’t just come from the federal government’s initiatives it came from many of their initiatives which destroyed the idea of responsibility and growing up to be good citizens that create a good nation. Their foreign affairs views are schizoid and basically not for the benefit of America but for the benefit of themselves. No honest discussion can be undertaken with them. Look at what happened with Biden who called Pence a nice guy. They went to destroy him. It’s amazing how they can hold hearings with a serial liar while the President is negotiating with M. Korea on their nuclear weapons. Anyone that is a serious member of that party should be ashamed of themselves.
I want you to know that I was a registered Democrat until more recent years when I went Republican. My registration reflected my families registration and my ability to vote in primaries. I am actually an independent as I used to vote for the best man or woman not the party.
Bush had a lot of abominations. To me he was a Liberal, but I liked him as a man and I didn’t totally dislike everything he tried to do. Reagan was the only President in the present time frame I could stand behind.
A lot of his personality comes from the fact that he is always negotiating. Just think, in the beginning of his administration he was tweeting things that raised the heat and his mouth upset many that liked him. The press focused on that while he had breathing time to dismantle a lot of what Obama did and the press as usual was out to lunch and didn’t even notice. That is known as deflection.
I would like to know where you disagree with the President. Maybe you should read Thomas Sowell’s autobiography
Allan,
“I would like to know where you disagree with the President. Maybe you should read Thomas Sowell’s autobiography.”
I have read essays by Sowell and More Government Means Less Liberty by Walter Williams, as well as Dinesh D’Souza’s Letters to a Young Conservative and Dr. Carson’s One Nation. I am sure I would like Sowell’s autobiography.
In the primaries, I disagreed with Trump’s style, predominantly. I do not like his abrasiveness, though I did have a hint that it was deliberate provocation for effect. It did (does) not strike me as presidential. However, I am also annoyed by the behavior of the press and some of our politicians. See the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman interview for a great example of how completely obnoxious journalists can be.
I think President Trump leans a little too much toward big business and big government, but that is without much data to back up my perception (besides the few things I’ve noted already). I haven’t been following the news much because it isn’t meaty–it isn’t the actual workings of the 3 branches. I might as well watch soap operas as watch the news. Blech.
I am uncomfortable with his treatment of the Saudis and Duterte (for two examples), though I am not entirely sure what to make of his praise (attract more flies with honey–get them feeling relaxed and happy to make effective negotiation more likely?).
While his private life should have little to no bearing on his ability to lead, I am not impressed by elements of his private life, it colors my opinion of the man anyhow to some degree. He is not setting a good example (of course, Clinton was worse). Men need a good model, and while Trump is a strong male figure and good at running a business, he does not appear to be a particularly good husband and his manner of dealing with opponents is not my cup of tea (Reagan was much better). His kids seemed to have been raised fairly well, though.
I am also not happy that the debt continues to rise.
I unfortunately have not followed his policies and the outcomes of his work to any close degree (not that it is covered much in the news). If I knew more, I’d certainly critique it.
“I think President Trump leans a little too much toward big business and big government, but that is without much data to back up my perception ”
Prairie, I am not sure where he leans too much toward big business. His corporate tax cut was necessary for the economy and working people. He certainly seems to trend away from big government more than Obama, GWB and the Clintons. I’m trying to think of where he leans towards big government but at the moment I can’t. He has threatened the pharmaceutical industry, he certainly doesn’t like ObamaCare, he would like a lot of government intervention in education to be transferred to more local areas, he has appointed Supreme Court members that will prevent government expansion. He does want to do infrastructure some of which is in the federal purview, but I don’t know how he plans to manage the rest. Maybe you can add some more comments.
He is abrasive, but that has helped move the country in a positive direction. To me a free press is essential but the press and media are getting out of hand. His claims of fake news are real and the banning of individuals and corporations threatens our democracy. You said it best: ” I might as well watch soap operas as watch the news”. I was very upset with how he acted in the primaries, but we have seen how people like John McCain have acted out of spite and against the national interest. I am not impressed with our politicians as a whole and the Republicans have not stood up for their principles and I believe that is one reason they lost so much in the mid terms.
I have stood firmly against the Saudi’s for decades and felt that we should have changed a lot of our policies towards them in the 70’s. I have only switched because the dynamics in the Middle East have radically changed and sometimes the worst are needed as allies. As long as they are acting in concert with American interests I would not move against them but at the same time I would be pushing them to hold back their radical Islamists. How they are acting now is unclear to me and I have to play wait and see.
Duterte. I am not sure of what you want Trump to do. Remember the underlying question is whether or not the Phillipines would tilt toward China.
We all worry about the debt, but you do realize who controls spending. The House and then the Senate.When it comes to the deficit the Democrats have been horrid and most Republicans have stood by or assisted them. The Tea Party group wants to control the deficit but they do not have sufficient power.
It seems that your biggest gripe with the President is his personality and some of his verbal and tweeting actions. As I have said before Trump provides everyone with angst, but if he is moving the nation in the right direction should that be a problem? He has even modified his behavior.
I’m not sure of what your reticence is to Trump except I do know a significant number of people who have been understandably influenced by the loud noises of the left coming from all sides including the media, Hollywood and academia.
Allan,
That was a thoughtful reply that I will have to answer after more consideration.
Regarding Republicans not reflecting their principles, my brother said he would probably be a Republican if they actually stood true to their principles. They are their own worst enemy.
“I’m not sure of what your reticence is to Trump”
I need to reflect more on myself and my perceptions of him before I can give a more well-reasoned answer.
There is one thing: I am wary of the cult of personality. I do not want to be too much in favor of any president (or not) lest I neglect to critique his actions as objectively and as fairly as I can. However, perhaps I am being unfair by not giving him credit where credit is due.
As much as I disagreed with Obama on his big government actions and especially with the surveillance state issues, I tried to assess him and his policies fairly. They didn’t measure up. However, he did support vouchers, which I do as well (preferably as a last resort in truly failing school systems).
“Regarding Republicans not reflecting their principles, my brother said he would probably be a Republican if they actually stood true to their principles. They are their own worst enemy.”
Trump established his principles, many of which agree with underlying Republican principals so one might think he is pushing Republicans to live by their principles which most haven’t. He is not a cult personality. He represents real policy and real principle. He is quite transparent, something absolutely necessary in our Republic, and actually changes his mind without worrying about what people will say. He has grown in office while he has done wonders for America. He is pro American and shockingly to me pro American Family values despite his own actions and verbiage. I actually believe that if he continues in this fashion both in his productivity and personally then in future generations he will be recalled as one of our greater Presidents.
Obama’s Presidency was removed from traditional American values. In all my life I do not remember any President so divisive when it came to race. Yes, we were a nation moving away from racism so the vestiges were quite apparrent, but he reversed the trend and as President shocked me by his behavior when anything racial came up he caused a split in the races. He was deeply authoritariantion and was not reliant on the Constitution when he governed. Contrary to what many believe after he won the election I was asked by a very leftwing friend what I thought. He thought I would be like he is today when Trump was elected. My response was that we proved America wasn’t a racist society and that I see many of his goals could actually be effectuated by following the Constitution. He didn’t.
Allan,
“Trump established his principles, many of which agree with underlying Republican principals so one might think he is pushing Republicans to live by their principles which most haven’t.”
I do hope this is the case, and, that he is successful.
“He is not a cult personality.”
Not particularly. By ‘cult personality’, I mean something closer to the ridiculous partisanship that I see amongst both parties. Republicans (politicians and citizenry) do not criticize or rebel against the Republican president and same goes for the Democrats. I am very wary of such things because it leads to blindness on policy ramifications.
“In all my life I do not remember any President so divisive when it came to race.”
Agreed.
“I do hope this is the case, and, that he is successful.”
Prairie, that makes two of us. Any change in the direction of rule of law and the Constitution is good.
“I mean something closer to the ridiculous partisanship that I see amongst both parties.”
Whether you like him or hate him he is neither Democrat nor Republican though he might shake up the Republican Party. Neither party has acted with the interests of the American people in mind. I hope at the end of his service that the nation is pointed in a better direction and that both parties respond by looking to meet the needs of American citizens.
Enjoy your kids. There is no need to follow up on this discussion.
Allan,
“Enjoy your kids. There is no need to follow up on this discussion.”
Of course there is reason–I need to say I enjoyed the conversation. Lots of good things to consider. 🙂
Olly,
You and Enigma seem to be in violent agreement on this issue. You both seem to agree that politicians “are playing with house money and they effectively operate above the law”.
There have been good points made on both sides of “show us your tax returns’ argument.
I really am concerned that showing the tax returns is not only insufficient for actually holding politicians to account (this should not be a problem if the IRS is actually doing its job), but that it is another factor that erodes trust, and, becomes another hoop or headache that could prevent normal people from stepping into the political arena. It could be yet one more way the media could target people through spin; they already attack family members and viciously spin anything they can conceive of.
I lean one way and then another. I want to hold them all to the same bar, but at the same time I do not want to injure the social contract more than it already has been.
What can address the issues of eroding public trust, further tax code manipulation, another media spin target, etc?
our system you say
in what system in the world are politicians not influenced by money?
do you think in the communist worker’s paradise of China, there isn’t a lot of buying off the government?
or any other place for that matter
some problems can only be mitigated. crusading against them is feckless.
Pelosi “will gladly release her tax returns if and when she runs for president.”
This is not likely. A smart dictator thinks ahead and never changes successful horses in midcoup.
Since Pelosi is already well along her way to seizing power via her coup against The American People who elected Trump using such new and improved made up crimes as being The Duly Elected President of The United States when The Democrats Fully Anointed Chosen One was slated to win and in Pence’s case, being a White Christian male slated for genocide, her road to the Presidency will be an unelected one, therefore technically she will not run.
I just hope that when she gets read into all the ultra classified secrets they use a calendar to educate and explain to her the difference between Thanksgiving and St. Valentines Day. She seems to be having a little trouble with that one.
The people did not elect Trump, the Electoral College did.
Jan, according to the Constitution the people elected Trump President of the United States. You should know that by now.
The people did not elect Trump, the Electoral College did.
I thought one response was enough but I guess you want me to repeat it: “Jan, according to the Constitution the people elected Trump President of the United States. You should know that by now.”
No, Allan. MOST Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, who did release her tax returns, and who would be POTUS right now but for the Electoral College. Trump “won” the Electoral College because of a few votes in a few key precincts in which Russians hacked social media in order to bring about the “victory”. Members of Trump’s campaign fed the key information to the Russians so they would know where and how to target key voters in key precincts. THAT’s what the Mueller investigation is all about. Trump will always be a fake POTUS.
No, the Deep State elected Trump by sabotaging Hillary 2 weeks before election day with the Comey announcement.
“the Deep State elected Trump by sabotaging Hillary 2 weeks before election day with the Comey announcement.”
….And just shortly before that the FBI’s lead attorney suggested prosecuting Hillary Clinton for illegal activities.
What an ironic thing to be debating on a post about what is good for the goose should be good for the gander!
Hillary had an illegal server and email address that she was using for state business, not to mention the emails marked TS, as well as the Bleachbitting and hammer incidents involving her American-citizen-owned equipment.
Some poor schmuck mishandled information to a lesser extent and got the book thrown at him. The gander got stewed and what became of the old goose? People carrying on about how she somehow got a raw deal when in truth she was a rotten (to the core) candidate who ran a lousy campaign because she assumed she had it in the bag.
Prairie the left doesn’t like equality under the law. Democrats used to but we can see what has happened to our civil society and how casually the left will dispense with our civil liberties.
Ideally, the inveterate whiners would campaign for a Constitutional Amendment or STFU.
That’s “ideally”, and it ain’t gonna happen.
In the meantime, there are therapeutic sites like this for the whiners to unload.
Can be viewed as entertaining or pathetic or whatever to see those adults? engaged in these extended crying jags😪.
Mostly, just boring😴.
The “Deep State” is a term that refers to a lot of different agencies and “constituencies” many of which have been clearly aligned against DJT from during the election and ever since.
so keep on dreaming
although I will say, if the Deep State gets itself more behind the President, instead of working against him, that would be good and welcome. LOL
“No, Allan. MOST Americans voted for Hillary Clinton”
Most Americans did not vote for Hillary Clinton. You reaffirm that you don’t know what you are talking about.
She received about 3 million more votes than Trump. That is a fact, albeit one not mentioned often by Rush, Hannity, Tucker, Drudge, et al. Trump has tried to claim that these were illegal votes, but the Federal Election Commission found absolutely NO evidence of illegality. There has been plenty of evidence of voter suppression involving Democratic precincts where Republicans control elections, however. That, too, is an inconvenient truth.
Maybe she did but the absolute number represents only a plurality of American population not a majority.
If distinctions like popular vote v electoral vote matter, then so do distinctions like what does “most americans ” mean, or not
“She received about 3 million more votes than Trump.”
That doesn’t mean most Americans voted for Hillary. It means of the votes that a fraction of the votes went to Hillary, another fraction to Trump, another fraction elsewhere with a lot of people not voting. How many of these votes were harvested is unknown. How many votes were illegal is also unknown so we don’t really know the exact count, nor does it matter.
What we do know is that the press was saturating California and NY with good things about Hillary and bad things about Trump where much of the good and bad were untrue or embellished. Trump decided he could not win in either state and focused his energies elsewhere. That meant that a vast number of people didn’t turn out for him or his message in California. It’s my bet had the popular vote been used Trump would have won the popular vote as well even with Democratic harvesting and illegal Democratic voting.
The end result is that Trump is President and rightfully so. We are lucky to have him for he is doing a great job.
I had to write in ‘None of the Above’ because all of the options were unsuitable. There is no way I would EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
“I had t o write in ‘None of the Above’ because all of the options were unsuitable. There is no way I would EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Prairie, I appreciate your efforts to do the right thing and even to put in the effort to write none of the above. I hope should Trump continue on his path that in the future he earns your vote, but if he doesn’t I know your vote will be true.
“She received about 3 million more votes than Trump”
And yet she lost because the US Constitution dictates majority of Electoral Votes win. Had she been an intelligent attorney….oh wait….she rode Bill Clinton’s coattails
so there you go. She lost because she is stupid
best
There’s really no need for Rush, Hannity etc. to mention it when chronic long term whiners like Natacha bring it up day after day, week after week, year after year after the year the election was settled.
But as mentioned before, Natacha is moving along nicely from the denial and anger stage, as any reader here can tell.😉😒😎
Anonymous delusional Natacha — for the last time, Hillary lost the election. Your assertion that she ‘won’ anything is meaningless. Trump won the election. Trump won the popular vote in more states than Hillary did. Trump won the popular vote in 30 states. Trump won more than 80% of all counties across the country. Trump won the Electoral College, and then some. In other words, by every meaningful measure, Hillary lost the election. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Yeah, TBob….did Hillary ever figure out “What Happened?”
wrong, about 60% of the total population will vote in presidential elections, at the most, thus guaranteeing that even a winner, is elected by a plurality of the population and not the majority.
including Madame Hillary who in case you did not know, LOST
Did Hellary win a majority of the ballots (even being gullible and taking the California and Arizona tallies as stated)?
If the IRS is competent, then what value is there in making returns public?
Good point.
Olly, That was my point below. The only value is to take the tax form and confuse the public to make a candidate look like a bad guy. President Trump was wise to withhold his. The average American would never understand his.
Oh hell trust me Donald Trump does not understand his own return. and probably no billionaire does.
real estate operations taxation is not exactly simple!
And your point is valid Jim.
The constituency that Jonathan Gruber identified regarding getting the ACA passed is the same group that are going to understand reports about President Trump’s tax returns? Bwahahahahaha! Yeah, no.
“IF?” Has there ever been an iffing poll on that very same question? Warren refused to release all of her records of the juicy years.
The NY Times along with the Clintons refused to own up to using the same tax dodge with the 18 year write off as then fellow Democrat Trump used. The one Clinton’s Congress enacted and Clinton signed.
Or as someone pointed out the Congress after passing an insider trading block for themselves ignored it.
“Just how did Pelosi get from ‘priveleged’ to the top tenth of the top one percent?”
“Just how did Pelosi get the government to pay for her supposed grape farm in Napa Valley?”
“Just how did Pelosi get those free vacations to Tibet?”
etc Feinstein
etc Biden
etc
Resident Dommunist Fishbreath
“would love to see Paul Ryan audited”
Yeah, the IRS sure screws Americans when the Democrats are in control.
Now its payback, baby…Weapinoze the IRS on Fishwings, and might as well use the FBI, CIA, HUD, CMS and a few other Federal investigative agencies to look into Fishwings and enemies of decent Americans since this is America
Great suggestion Fishhead
Pelosi is proving that she and her party are disingenuous and willing to subvert the duties of Congress, the justice department, the IRS and every other government agency to subvert any political disagreement with her party. Totally fascist.
I am not a Trump supporter. Despise the man. Not happy that he is in office. I am, however, a defender of the constitution and of democracy, and a supporter of sanity.
From the time income tax was initiated until 1973, no presidential candidate ever released his tax returns, nor was it suggested that any of them should do so. Since then, more often than not only the first two pages have been released, which tells the public nothing other than the gross amount of income. Add that to the number of Democrats who are unwilling to release their taxes and it becomes clear this this is nothing more than one element in a witch hunt and an an assault on the electoral process spelled out in our constitution and the on law of the land passed by more than 200 years of legislation.
I appreciate your honesty and especially your common sense
” only the first two pages have been released”
I didn’t realize that. Do you have a citation for that? It seems to make sense.
Here’s Hillary’s 2015 return. It’s probably 50 pages long.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs.taxnotes.com/2019/HR_Clinton_2015.pdf
I wonder how much that tax return told us about Uranium One, the email scandal etc. So far I didn’t see any mention of either of these important things, at least important enough for the legal head of the FBI wanting to indict Hillary.
“Clinton Foundation Amends Tax Returns, Discloses Millions In Foreign Contributions”
“Clinton charities refile six years of tax returns to amend errors”
“Clinton Foundation tax forms reveal millions in unreported donations“
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-tax-forms-reveal-millions-in-unreported-donations
Imagine that. Errors….Millions in Foreign Contributions. Unreported! 6 years!!
Well, they were dirt poor hillbillies from R-Kansas, and clearly poor white trash like them cant be expected to know how to file tax returns or her win a US presidential election whose goal everybody knows except her is to win majority of electoral votes
Who knew???
Donna Shalala knew…President of the Clinton FUNDation.
And lo! Shalala is now a Member of Congress!!!
those hillbillies breed like rabbits..,genetic mutations due to inbreeding be damned
👯♀️
“The Washington Examiner reports that the Clinton Foundation’s amended tax forms include “$8.8 million in government grants that was not previously listed.” No doubt each and every one of us would enjoy the same “no harm, no foul” treatment from the IRS if we forgot to mention almost nine million dollars in revenue”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-foundation-tax-forms-reveal-millions-in-unreported-donations
oh and why only 5. Statutes of LImitations is probably why. who knows what the deal was before that.
The Dims are actually better off if Trump doesn’t release his tax returns. That way, undocumented smears like Sam’s comment above can continue to be made at will. Speculation is way more fun than dealing with facts that ruin the narrative.
I actually do not see the need for seeing other peoples taxes. If there is wrong doing, the IRS should be finding it. Otherwise, all it will be is another mechanism for bipartisan spin on matters that don’t concern us. Most of us would be hard pressed to understand a tax filing such as President Trumps. But that is the point since it will be “explained” to us by partisan hacks to feed their base.
“If there is wrong doing, the IRS should be finding it.”
Agreed and in Trumps case it is impossible to believe that the completely untouchable, weaponized rogue IRS hasn’t been going over Trumps returns down to the subatomic level since 2015 looking for for any and all material that can be used against him or spun into a new National Impeachment Emergency, then released around the world and put in a rocket and launched into to space for aliens (the green big eyed ones) to read.
After all since the law does not apply to the IRS or for that matter any weaponized Democrat controled Agency, if a single comma were out of place or the edge of a single paper were dog eared, the Newly Democrat approved Official Lawmakers of the land, CNN, MSNBC and Twitter would immediately declare dog eared pages worthy of the life imprisonment without due process and Trump would be working on his backhand at Club Fed by now.
Sure, open the books on all elected officials, I would love to see Paul Ryan audited and see how he became a multimillionaire. Better yet, Mitch McConnell and his wife, I bet that one is a real doozy. Fact of it is that this issue should not be partisan, it would be like cockroaches running from the light for most of them.
Absolutely. It cannot be partisan. Don’t forget Diane Feinstein. 🙂
Fact of it is that this issue should not be partisan,
And yet you just couldn’t help yourself naming two Republicans and no Democrats. See how easy that was.
Example of reading what you want to read…I said “all elected officials” The word being ALL.
But you only named 2 Republicans, and no Democrats, right?
My first thought as well, Olly. It shouldn’t be partisan, but it should only apply to people who disagree with me.
Do you really need any more proof that this generation of Democratic leaders are cynical hypocrites? Maybe I’m better educated. Here in Virginia we have Northam and Fairfax.
Is there evidence that Ms Pelosi may have laundered money, is or was in serious debt, was involved in several cases of fraud, evaded taxes, and is enjoying emoluments as a result of her public position?
I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many of our elected officials were found to have engaged in insider trading.
Ever hear of ‘Nancy Pelosi and Visa IPO’ see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LMAP0L5G4
I think Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Feinstein got wealthy (and some others mentioned) the old-fashion way—- they married into money.
Pelosi’s husband is a mega successful real-estate developer. I don’t think he was born into the patriciate.
Feinstein was born into a somewhat wealthy family and has been well-fixed her entire life bar the period running from 1956 to 1962. Her 2d husband, Bertram Feinstein, was a surgeon who married quite late in life and (IIRC) had no children of his own. Her 3d, Richard Blum, is, like Paul Pelosi, a real estate developer. It’s a reasonable wager their political connections have helped their business. However, if I’m not mistaken, Blum was already rich when he married Feinstein and Pelosi prosperous before his wife began building a career in California politics.
I won’t hold this against them, Billionaires are entitled to vote and participate in politics too. Though the current crop of Democrat Noobs wants to scalp them all,.
If you’re insinuating that is the case for our president, then you’re listening to the wrong news channels.
The amount of Trump’s net worth is disputed, but obviously he did not marry into money.
Sen. McConnel was one of those mentioned whose wife is “fairly wealthy”.
I’m not sure if any of this applies to Paul Ryan, who was also mentioned…..I’d have to check, but I don’t think that he is wealthy.
He may become wealthy as a lobbyist, but I don’t think he is currently wealthy.
McConnell’s assets are supposedly derived from his wife’s inherited wealth. McConnell had a fairly unremarkable career as an attorney prior to 1978 and he’s been in public office ever since, so it would be damning were the money derived from his investments. (His family-of-origin was common-and-garden middle class).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-house-speaker-paul-ryan-162600801.html
I stand corrected on Paul Ryan’s net worth….the Yahoo article puts him in the “multi-millionarie” category, so he’d be considered wealthy by most standards.
There are numerous lists published in many articles about the “mega-millionaire/multi-million aire” current members of Congress.
He’s almost certainly not a multi-millionaire unless he’s on the take. Again, he had ordinary salaried jobs working for NGOs prior to 1999 along with some side work as a personal trainer. He’s been in Congress since. His wife is a tax lawyer in a small city. It does appear his wife came from an affluent family (she attended fancy schools), so there may be some family money there.
His own father was a lawyer in a small city with a passel of kids, and died young. His mother is still alive. Ain’t much family money from his end of the business.
Absurd,..
Most of the lists I’ve seen ranking the wealthiest members of Congress count “married money”…,e,g., Feinstein, McConnell, Pelosi, etc.
Using that standard, the linked Yahoo article put Ryan’s net worth in the “low” multi-millionaire stage.
I think John Kerry was at or near the head of pacj when he was a Senator; he “married well” twice, esp.the second time.
I remember he handled that issue pretty well one of the 2004 interviews or debates when he was running against Bush 43.
The curio about Kerry is that his upbringing was spent in posh locales and around wealthy people, but his family-of-origin was not wealthy. (Though some of his maternal-side relatives had a wad of cash). I think Foreign Service officers like Kerry’s father did and do get some eccentric job benefits and IIRC, a great-aunt sprang for his school tuitions.
Supposedly Julia Thorne’s family were, collectively, centimillionaires in 1970. Then, of course, he hooked up with John Heinz’ widow. It’s difficult to believe this to be random chance.
He’s smarter than he looks!
Mr. Kurtz,..
To your point, and a
Absurd’s point as well; I’ve known a number of people over the decades who “are all about” making contacts, rubbing elbows with the “right people”, etc. in the pursuit of social and /or monetary advantages.
I’m not talking just about Kerry, but a range of individuals who might best be described as “social climbers”, or something similar.
Those who take this to an extreme seem to be very willing and proficient ***- kissers who can be entertaining to observe in their efforts.
I’m thinking more about a few individuals I’ve known over many years that about John Kerry.
These guys ( yeah, they were all guys) became something of a running joke among the people who knew them.
They seemed to have varying degrees of success in their pursuits, but it was their commitment to kissing *** that drew the most interest and entertainment involved in observing them.
With Pelosi or Feinstein you need evidence but with Trump no evidence is needed?
Samantha, you are a hypocrite.
And you are still an idiot.
And you, YNOT have continued with a continuous run of comments devoid of any information. Everyone can see that so even people in love with you recognize that you are stupid.
Ha, ha, ha,. Look over there. Don tlook at Trump. Ha, ha, ha.