Window Seat for Sleeping.

[ballpoint]

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump will get to keep his campaign promise to release his taxes.

He'll release his tax returns, but his actual taxes are still firmly grasped in his tiny hands.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, mania said:

??? ????????

 

This is exactly the kind of thing the non-workers would say & yet ....WTH would it have to do with anything

As if a citizen voicing  displeasure with its elected government has something to prove???

 

You should aim much much higher or at least look at the problem

I am looking at the problem, he’s in the WH.

 

And after two years of a Republican lead House looking the other way voters have chosen to elect a House that will do its duty and hold Trump

and his administration in check.

 

 

 

[mikebike]

8 hours ago, Trouble said:

I don't hold politicians accountable for their campaign statements and it's foolish trying to do so

So, then, on what do you base your decisions when you vote?

 

Maybe it is on what they telepathically communicate to you?

Edited April 12, 2019 by mikebike

[lannarebirth]

Anyhow, a couple of states, with many more to follow, are going to require that candidates for the presidency release their tax returns in order to be eligible to run in the primary in their state. Primaries start in 10 months.

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, mania said:

Is the USA in such perfect shape that our elected/paid officials spend soooo much time on Trump tax or Trump this & that?

SOP for both sides... GOP was really doin’ some intense “governing” during all them Benghazi hearings, eh!!

[Orton Rd]

Concentrate on what he's doing for the country and not fake sex scandals, Russian fairy tales or tax records.

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

While the law Congress seeks to impose hasn't been tested by the courts, the right to confidentiality with respect to returns has.

The linked decision relates to a Freedom of Info request... hardly a precedent in a Congressional request backed by a very clearly worded law. But, ultimately, it will be decided in the courts.

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Concentrate on what he's doing for the country and not fake sex scandals, Russian fairy tales or tax records.

Well I did for about a millisecond and came up with nothing positive at all.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Show me the cases where access to another persons taxes was granted arbitrarily rather than on the basis of a compelling need or evidence of criminality. Even if the House committe wins this, which I don't think they will, they will lose by setting this precedent.

It is my understanding that Congress has never before felt they needed to utilize the 1924 law this request is predicated on, so it would be extremely difficult to find any precedent related to the obviously non-arbitrary law resulting from the Teapot Dome scandal.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The linked decision relates to a Freedom of Info request... hardly a precedent in a Congressional request backed by a very clearly worded law. But, ultimately, it will be decided in the courts.

 

There are all kinds of cases. Time and again the constitutional court maintains that the right to confidentiality is a protected right absent compelling need or evidence of criminality. I would not be surprised, should this battle reach the Supreme Court, that the court may rule the power Congress granted itself, unconstitutional. Looks like a good case.

[mikebike]

38 minutes ago, mania said:

Would be at least nice to see those that launch these held to help defer the costs if it again comes to a bunch of frivolous sensationalism.

Why do taxpayers have to pay for these things ? Because ultimately their all our employees

Hmmmmm... if I was worried about what my tax dollars were being wasted on, the tiny amount spent government oversight would not be high on my list... welfare for corporations and the already wealthy, military spending excesses, porkbarreling etc... would yield infinitely greater savings and money in my pocket. But maybe you are not really concerned with how your tax dollars are spent...

[Brigand]

There needs to be some sort of consequences/sanctions for frivolous investigations that turn up little or nothing (or have little chance of success) and waste millions of tax payer dollar, so that only ones that have substance are actually acted on instead of a continual stream of soap opera style expensive investigations that are little more than vindictive handbags or distractions from actually getting some things done that matter. Bunch of over paid drama queens the lot of them are. 

 

[bristolboy]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

Exactly correct. 

Your US tax return information is confidential. The IRS and your tax professional cannot disclose your tax information to anyone else without your explicit consen

If

As has been cited ad nauseam, your assertion us utterly false. A 1924 law specifically gave the Congressional committes in charge of tax laws the right to demand the tax returns of any American.  Here's an excerpt from Judge Napolitano via foxnews.com

"In 1924, Congress passed the Revenue Act, which allows the House Ways & Means chair or the Senate Finance chairman to solicit from the IRS the tax returns of anyone.

It was signed into law by Calvin Coolidge in the wake of President Warren Harding's Teapot Dome Scandal, and nicknamed the Mellon Bill after wealthy banker-turned-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon."

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/04/09/judge-napolitano-trump-tax-return-demand-richie-neal-ways-means

 

You are as impervious to facts as is Trump.

Edited April 13, 2019 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal, again.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There are all kinds of cases. Time and again the constitutional court maintains that the right to confidentiality is a protected right absent compelling need or evidence of criminality. I would not be surprised, should this battle reach the Supreme Court, that the court may rule the power Congress granted itself, unconstitutional. Looks like a good case.

A case before the Supreme Court in which Congress argues the interpretation of a law impedes Congress performing their Constitutional duty to keep the President in check.

 

Bring it on.

[bristolboy]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Anyhow, a couple of states, with many more to follow, are going to require that candidates for the presidency release their tax returns in order to be eligible to run in the primary in their state. Primaries start in 10 months.

I haven't looked into it but what are the odds that these are states that are overwhelmingly likely to vote for a Democrat. 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There are all kinds of cases. Time and again the constitutional court maintains that the right to confidentiality is a protected right absent compelling need or evidence of criminality. I would not be surprised, should this battle reach the Supreme Court, that the court may rule the power Congress granted itself, unconstitutional. Looks like a good case.

Actually, if you look it up, you would find that the court would decide not on that basis, but whether the inquiry is in service of a legitimate legislative purpose.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Brigand said:

There needs to be some sort of consequences/sanctions for frivolous investigations that turn up little or nothing (or have little chance of success) and waste millions of tax payer dollar, so that only ones that have substance are actually acted on instead of a continual stream of soap opera style expensive investigations that are little more than vindictive handbags or distractions from actually getting some things done that matter. Bunch of over paid drama queens the lot of them are. 

 

Congress holding the President and Executive in check is a Constitutional duty.

 

Re your assertions on the investigation, let’s see the report.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I haven't looked into it but what are the odds that these are states that are overwhelmingly likely to vote for a Democrat. 

I think that is true.  Washington and Connecticut have passed law I think. A dozen or so, bluish states to follow.

[mikebike]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There are all kinds of cases. Time and again the constitutional court maintains that the right to confidentiality is a protected right absent compelling need or evidence of criminality. I would not be surprised, should this battle reach the Supreme Court, that the court may rule the power Congress granted itself, unconstitutional. Looks like a good case.

We shall see. Never before has Congress exercised its authority under the 1924 law. To speculate at this point seems a waste of time.

[mikebike]

11 minutes ago, Brigand said:

There needs to be some sort of consequences/sanctions for frivolous investigations that turn up little or nothing (or have little chance of success) and waste millions of tax payer dollar, so that only ones that have substance are actually acted on instead of a continual stream of soap opera style expensive investigations that are little more than vindictive handbags or distractions from actually getting some things done that matter. Bunch of over paid drama queens the lot of them are. 

 

How do you know what is “substantive” BEFORE an investigation?

[Brigand]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Re your assertions on the investigation, let’s see the report.

Lol ... you fit right in well with those members mentioned in the last sentence of my previous post. Keep the drama up Sir. 

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you look it up, you would find that the court would decide not on that basis, but whether the inquiry is in service of a legitimate legislative purpose.

Or they may find that that is a specious argument that too easily becomes a weapon against political rivals.  Anyhow, should be a good case. I'm looking forward to it, whichever way it turns out.

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Concentrate on what he's doing for the country and not fake sex scandals, Russian fairy tales or tax records.

Doing for or doing to?

[bristolboy]

55 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It could blow up in their faces. Anyone over the age of 50 has known for decades just who and what Trump is. He got elected anyway.

 

People like to say Trump is weakening America's institutions, but as far as I can see it's institutions 10 and Trump 0. This is the kind of stuff that weakens institutions like law enforcemnt and revenue collection and and regulators. It smells like a Thai style retroactive charge designed to undermine democratic institutions.

 

Democrats should be careful of what they wish for as the precedent they set, will be 10 times more vengeful when the Republicans return the favor.

I don't see how the Republicans could be 10 times more vengeful next time around. Remember the 7 Benghazi investigations? Next time would it be 70?

Of course, Republican legislators could demand to see the tax returns of a Democratic President. Or even of a Republican. But considering that virtually all of the recent ones have released or will release their tax returns, what difference would that make?

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't see how the Republicans could be 10 times more vengeful next time around. Remember the 7 Benghazi investigations? Next time would it be 70?

Of course, Republican legislators could demand to see the tax returns of a Democratic President. Or even of a Republican. But considering that virtually all of the recent ones have released or will release their tax returns, what difference would that make?

Or a Democratc mega donor or bundler. It's a slippery slope.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Or a Democratc mega donor or bundler. It's a slippery slope.

Would that be a bad thing? In fact, in Norway, every citizen has a right to see the tax returns of every other citizen. Among other things, that law would go a long way towards promoting fair pay.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Would that be a bad thing? In fact, in Norway, every citizen has a right to see the tax returns of every other citizen. Among other things, that law would go a long way towards promoting fair pay.

 

I'm a proponent of the right to privacy as a civil right, but if the world changed tomorrow and everything became transparent, that would be ok with me too. I'm less comfortable in that inbetween space where effectively some people have rights and others effectively do not.

Edited April 12, 2019 by lannarebirth

[mikebike]

20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Or a Democratc mega donor or bundler.

That would be a very good thing, not a bad thing. Dems should dump big money donors and go back to their working-class past.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, mikebike said:

That would be a very good thing, not a bad thing. Dems should dump big money donors and go back to their working-class past.

Donations from Mob run unions?  Anyway, you're missing the point, or I gave a poor example.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Donations from Mob run unions?  Anyway, you're missing the point, or I gave a poor example.

Mob run unions? Really? What century are you living in? The last significant mob run union was the Teamsters. And they supported Republicans. You keep on betraying your right wing prejudices.