Senate The US Politics discussion

Gentle reminder that Capone was brought down due to his taxes.

Tax returns matter.

 

And again, nothing in that argument supports why they have to be publicly revealed. The US has laws like the foreign corrupt practices act, among others. The bulk of these laws deal with accounting principles, exactly which forms the core of this topic. If there was any practice detailed in Trump Co's tax return that was "unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business" (as the law says) then the IRS would forward the information to the SEC, or FBI as the case may be, for investigation or sanction. There is already a process in place for all of this.

If you saw a tax return that detailed a holding company used to consolidate tax liability and issue tax free dividends, what would it mean to you? Is that good or bad, and according to what metric? But wait, what's the big deal about tax free dividends, if not all dividend issues are tax free? If your eyes are already glassed over, then it means that you would probably rely on a third party source to tell you what it meant. To Mother Jones, it will always be bad and a source of income imbalance. To Fox Business News, it would be smart financial sense and a way to grow wealth. So what will actually change?

Only to the extreme fringe does Trump's tax returns contain some imaginary smoking gun that I suppose in their mind just amounts to a digital picture of Mr Burns submitted over and over to the IRS.

So why not just focus on the policies that are unfolding right now?

 

One of the "real issues" going on in contemporary politics is resolving debates about the lines between due and improper donor influence. It is creating rules of the road that help maintain public confidence in government, allow for those with relevant subject expertise to weigh in, but avoids regulatory capture by private interests and minimizes the likelihood of future corruption. This has many facets, but Trump's sharp regression from previous transparency practices is certainly an important part, and his failure to publicly release his tax returns is far from last among them.

 

Yes, but like I said, I don't think he's doing anything illegal. Just utilising knowledge of existing regulation (on part of his accountants) to the utmost benefit to the extent that it gives a bad impression. In other words, entirely an issue of optics, not legality. I wouldn't expect that he had the stones to actually break the law while running for president! Although that would be epic.

 

Unless the returns have a itemized line saying, and they wont, Massive Funds Shifted To Shell Co. With Ties To Russian Mob they wont amount to beans.

 

Sure Wocky, and that's more in line with a policy debate.

The Obama administration's practice of improperly targeting tax exempt organizations that were critical of him, or wiretapping independent journalists to find out who was writing unflattering stories about the administration, represented a much more serious blow to transparency than any tax return. Obama released his tax returns even as the above was going on. I guess that's a bit like jiggling keys in front of a crying baby to distract them?

I could care less about seeing how much a President like Obama personally made off of his last book deal during the time his administration was intercepting news reporter's cell phone conversations to find who couldn't be trusted.

What you're saying is that you don't have faith in the existing procedure that is in place because it is not tried in the court of public opinion. There is a kernel of an issue there, as transparency is important, but I don't think it is the controlling factor in difference to actual policy or practice.

 

Really? Cause I think he has the stones to break the law while running for POTUS. He really thinks that being POTUS makes him untouchable.

 

Mr44, Trump's business dealings don't have to be illegal to be highly consequential to the welfare of the US, and it's only a fluke that he isn't breaking the law right now.

For some dumb reason, the President is not subject to conflict of interest rules unlike virtually every other government official, but everyone knows that the President should be subject to these conflict of interest rules (and maybe the emoluments clause does disallow this).

Trump hasn't divested from his businesses. He has created tons of obvious opportunities for conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interests are bad for governance by allowing policy to be shaped for one man's gain rather than for the general welfare. His tax returns would help shed light on these conflicts of interest.

Therefore, releasing his tax returns would be in the best interest of Americans.

 

Exactly. This was the heart of the previously mentioned Panama Papers incident. For example, none of the documentation indicated that Cameron had done anything illegal or immoral. The information was just more sensitive, such as his father investing resources in the off shore entities to give the family an edge in business dealings. It makes for awkward country club dinners or coffee at the House of Lords when you just undercut your peers in an investment. I think even Cameron's mum had tax sheltered investments detailed in the Panama Papers, which again, is just annoying when the Catholic Women's Club comes around looking for donations. These examples are simply more embarrassing than anything else, but I certainly understand why the family would keep their private and public lives separate and distinct without having sinister motives.

Maybe that's the price one pays for deciding to enter public office, but that is also why there are already procedures in place that don't involve a mob mentality?

 

I really can not fathom how anyone would be against him releasing his taxes. Like it literally doesn't compute.

All people are asking for is the same level of transparency, if not less, then the GOP requested of Hillary Clinton.

 

I don't see how the "BUT OBAMA" diversions really help you here. You're right that actual policy and practice are what matter. But failure to disclose White House visitor logs, shutting the press out of foreign trips, outright lying on multiple occasions from the podium of the White House Press Briefing room, relaxation of "cool off" period rules requiring lobbyists to stay out of government for a prescribed period of time, and eliminating public notification of White House waivers from even such rules as remain are all actual policies. All performed by the Trump Administration, and all part-and-parcel of his retreat from any idea of best practices, accountability, or governmental transparency. It's unsurprising people have rallied around the tax disclosure as emblematic, since it's the most easily understood

 

You mean like the Clinton Foundation? (cough, cough...) Clinton had no problem releasing her personal tax returns, because the family assets had already been washed through the Foundation, which is why they were more defensive about the foundation operations.

If that's the case, Trump should just take a page from the Clinton playbook, draw up a basic 1040 form for himself and publicly release it to shut everyone up.

 

I don't see where "The Clinton Foundation" abandoned lobbying rules or how it could bar reporters from State Department trips abroad. But erm, sure. If you're strained point was that it wasn't a very transparent organization, then yeah, I agree. That's why I called for it's closure from the very outset of the 2016 campaign and criticized Clinton throughout for its setup. But what does any of that have to do with all the ways in which the Trump Administration is stepping back from practices that other actual Presidencies used to help build public confidence and accountability?

 

YES! Wocky, you're finally getting it. Those examples are all policy/practice issues. For example, there is no private "fair use" for the White House visitor logs. It's not going to reveal privileged business information or compromise private transactions.

The White House is purely executive office related, and each citizen is a shareholder, so to speak. The public has a vested interest in who visits the White House and meets with the President.. People should press the administration to make the visitor logs public, and they should be subject to freedom of information requests.

Surely though, you see the difference?

 

I guess "Make America Great" actually means "Bring America Back to 1950".

As someone who was hardcore anti-Clinton and thinks she was involved in a lot of questionable stuff, I have to say that we got more transparency from her then we did Trump.

Hell, give me faked reports. At least try to pretend you care!

 

The requirement that income from illegal activities be reported was specifically meant to bring down people like him. Nothing else stuck, so they went with something relatively mundane. It's not really an example of tax returns being especially important; had Capone (like many crime bosses) simply reported all his (laundered) income, he would have been fine. And it's not related to Trump unless he broke the law regarding his taxes which as VVM said is pretty unlikely.

 

Surely you see how broadly related issues are usually pressed at only a single point? Gay marriage wasn't and probably never would have been the most pressing issue for homosexuals. But it was the most publicly comprehensible, so pressure focused there on the theory that one concession would yield gains in other, more substantive realms of policy. Neither Dreamers nor rapists-murderers are the predominant face of illegal Mexican immigration to the US, but that's what both sides highlight, respectively. What do you call yourself getting at that isn't a strangely narrow application to this one example that would otherwise be critical of Donald Trump?

 

Because it's the one issue that doesn't matter? Or rather, what I mean is that it's the issue that Trump has complete control over, so it's the one issue that is like asking a brick wall to move?

Transparency Protestors- We're potentially lumping all of our issues into Trump's tax return... (imagine mob chanting here---> "Release the return!!" "Release the return!!!" You get the idea.)
Trump- "No."
Transparency Protestors- (just random milling about and day dreams of sinister tax conspiracies.....) Again, I think you get the idea.

And even if his tax return was made public, like a lot of other people, I don't think it would matter or indicate anything. Clearly, there is nothing illegal going to be revealed, so it's just going to be a bunch of financial reporting that no one cares about except for the talking heads in the media, or the so called guest experts who tell people what to think on either side.

Now, what would a mass demonstration result in if the focus was something small, but completely public like the White House visitor log? Could Congress pass a law mandating that the visitor logs to government buildings be made public? Could the Supreme Court step in for something like that if Trump still refused? The SC would never force anyone to reveal their personal tax return, but I bet even the conservative judges would have no problem making something like a visitor log public for the greater public good. There is your potential momentum.

 

Brilliant piece from Foreign Affairs by Bob Keohane(awesome defensive realist) and Jeff Colgan about the danger of the global liberal order withering away at the hands, not of the populists, but of the ones who created it through their own inaction.

Change must come or it will collapse(as it might already be doing now).

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti...pJobID=1143364113&spReportId=MTE0MzM2NDExMwS2

Here's the close:

Without dramatic change to their messages and approach, established political parties will fade away altogether. An outsider has already captured the Republican Party; the Democrats are cornered on the coasts. In Europe, the British Labour Party is imploding and the traditionally dominant French parties are falling apart. To adapt, establishment parties must begin to frame their ideas differently. As the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has argued, progressives must learn to speak of honor, loyalty, and order in addition to equality and rights.
To derig the liberal order and stave off complete defeat at the hands of populists, however, traditional parties must do more than rebrand themselves and their ideas. They must develop substantive policies that will make globalization serve the interests of middle- and working-class citizens. Absent such changes, the global liberal order will wither away.

 

"mob"

 

How does this logic make sense? The things I listed are all under Trump's complete control. The Executive Branch can decide whether the press accompanies it on Executive Branch business. Trump decides the regulations that govern when and how former lobbyists can join the Trump Administration. What are you saying?

At the same time, Congress could pass laws mandating any of these practices. Likewise, as there is no inherent right to run for the Presidency, and there are already multiple stipulations on it, I don't really see why a law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns would be legally indefensible. I am, though, aware of the tax return issue as one of the very few where multiple figures from both sides of the political divide have stated--and continue to do so--that Trump's handling of the issue is wrong.

Let's pretend all that isn't true, though. You want us to believe that all your desperate squawking here is purely out of concern that opponents of the Administration might not be pursuing their most effective leverage? All the multiple points in every single post of yours that looks like you are just trying to deflect blame from the Administration are purely coincidental?

 

Spoiler

I think

Spoiler

the sheen

Spoiler

is coming off

Spoiler

 

SergeyX2017 this is how you post multiple pictures btw

 

Rumours going around that Chaffetz may resign soon. Wonder what dirt is about to come out about him, or if he just got paid a lucrative gig at FOX News.