Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
35 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Similar to rats abandoning a sinking ship.  In this case, it's sketchy passengers scrambling to the lifeboats.

This will the corrupt democrats worst nightmare....BIG TIME.

"lawyer up..."

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
2 hours ago, illisdean said:

Incorrect, more like $327M but certainly they could investigate how some members of congress amassed legitimate fortunes thru legitimate business ventures and waste everyones time. It's the pelosi's. Schumer's, berni sanders, liz warrens and others who are worth mega-millions yet have no bonafide business enterprise in their portfolios. DOGE will likely shine light on these ultra wealthy politicians earning a gov't salary. Could get real interesting for them and maybe why Wash DC lawyer searches on google have spiked recently.

 

rickscottnetworth.jpg.ce54ab20b7ae75dcea0e80c1d0f1c713.jpg

 

Additional reference:

https://news.meaww.com/10-richest-members-in-the-us-congress-and-how-they-made-their-millions-from-mitt-romney-to-david-trone

 

That's what the source I linked said. Different sources seem to show different numbers.

 

As to the people you cited, their tax returns are public. There is no mystery about where the money comes from. It's just one of your MAGA fake scandals.

Posted
33 minutes ago, candide said:

That's what the source I linked said. Different sources seem to show different numbers.

 

As to the people you cited, their tax returns are public. There is no mystery about where the money comes from. It's just one of your MAGA fake scandals.

Why do you think some taxpayers get audited by the IRS?  If everyone were squeaky clean there would be no reason for audits. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Why do you think some taxpayers get audited by the IRS?  If everyone were squeaky clean there would be no reason for audits. 

Of course. However, before accusing someone of fraud, evidence must be shown. 

 

On top of it, as the tax returns have been publicized, you can be sure they have been scrutinised by GOP analysts (and that the Dems did the same for GOP congressmen).

Posted
4 minutes ago, candide said:

Of course. However, before accusing someone of fraud, evidence must be shown. 

 

On top of it, as the tax returns have been publicized, you can be sure they have been scrutinised by GOP analysts (and that the Dems did the same for GOP congressmen).

I am not accusing anyone of fraud.  What I am saying is scrutinizing one's tax return is not the same as performing a field audit.  Besides unrealized gains may be reported to the IRS, but are not necessarily required to be entered on one's tax return.  Just saying.  Even required financial disclosures can be vague.  We will just have to wait and see.  Who knows, there may be some surprises.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

I am not accusing anyone of fraud.  What I am saying is scrutinizing one's tax return is not the same as performing a field audit.  Besides unrealized gains may be reported to the IRS, but are not necessarily required to be entered on one's tax return.  Just saying.  Even required financial disclosures can be vague.  We will just have to wait and see.  Who knows, there may be some surprises.

You were not  but that's what the poster I replied to was baselessly insinuating.

Posted
5 minutes ago, theblether said:

You must be off your nut to think D.O.G.E. is going to audit individual taxpayers. 

Dept of “Government “ Efficiency! 
waste fraud and abuse of the Department, bureaucracy.

 

The IRS goes after people who evade taxes , except the Bidens.

Posted

Congrats Op you’re able to carry a thread this long !

 

God knows we’ll find more once Trumps full contingency arrives in a few short days.

The author of Government Gangsters, has unfinished business.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Congrats Op you’re able to carry a thread this long !

 

God knows we’ll find more once Trumps full contingency arrives in a few short days.

The author of Government Gangsters, has unfinished business.

 

 

As I pointed out earlier, the DOGE team has now increased to 100. They've only just begun. Some of the things I'm reading are so bad I don't want to comment. 

 

It appears that successive US governments have abrogated their fundamental fiduciary duty to the extent of what can only be described as criminal negligence. That will include Trump 1.0 

 

Democrats vowing to "fight on the streets" better get ready for a few million taxpayers showing up to fight back. 

 

Sickening to think so much money has been wasted. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, riclag said:

With DOGE!

Key word “Transitioning”

The president’s new executive order gives Musk and DOGE carte blanche and sets limits on hiring veterans and transitioning active duty military personnel

Call it what you want, but I still say it's a slippery slope. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Call it what you want, but I still say it's a slippery slope. 

  defending  Transgender’s in the military is a slippery slope?

 

Posted
1 minute ago, riclag said:

  defending  Transgender’s in the military is a slippery slope?

 

No where in the link did I see anything mentioned about transgenders in the military.  Any way, that is not what I was referring to.  Speaking as a retired veteran, I feel there should be no place for them in our military.

Posted
Just now, Hawaiian said:

No where in the link did I see anything mentioned about transgenders in the military.  Any way, that is not what I was referring to.  Speaking as a retired veteran, I feel there should be no place for them in our military.

Fair enough! My mistake , I seen the word Transitioned and thought it was

a play on words

Posted
12 minutes ago, riclag said:

Fair enough! My mistake , I seen the word Transitioned and thought it was

a play on words

No problem.  To err is human, except for some posters who are NEVER wrong.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, riclag said:

Fair enough! My mistake , I seen the word Transitioned and thought it was

a play on words

So what is your thought on the topic now (if you read it all, might be to many words in the article for you though).

Posted
9 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

So what is your thought on the topic now (if you read it all, might be to many words in the article for you though).

Enough, already!  He was man enough to admit he was mistaken.  No one is infallible unless you are one of those posters who is NEVER wrong.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...