A thought on releasing tax returns

[Woody]

The most common response from dems and libs concerning candidates releasing tax returns is "he's running for President".  While I disagree with this does it not stand to reason that it is just as important for representatives and senators, who write and pass the tax code, to release theirs?  Is it just as important to see what tax breaks they pass and who gains advantage from them?  How exactly do public servant bureaucrats who enter public life as middlecass citizens become multi millionaires after decades of public life? 


The left's lack of intellectual curiosity concerning this conundrum leads some of us to dismiss their calls of tax returns with a chuckle.

[clistensprechen]

While it stands to reason to examine the tax returns of senators and representatives, the Constitution doesn't attach the "high crimes and misdemeanors" restriction to any of those posts.  Just to the presidency.

[Woody]

While it stands to reason to examine the tax returns of senators and representatives, the Constitution doesn't attach the "high crimes and misdemeanors" restriction to any of those posts.  Just to the presidency.

 :strawman:

[clistensprechen]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

[Woody]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

 :strawman:






Remember, the president only signs bills that legislators pass.  Apparently you can care less about their financial situation.

[kentay]

The most common response from dems and libs concerning candidates releasing tax returns is "he's running for President".  While I disagree with this does it not stand to reason that it is just as important for representatives and senators, who write and pass the tax code, to release theirs?  Is it just as important to see what tax breaks they pass and who gains advantage from them?  How exactly do public servant bureaucrats who enter public life as middlecass citizens become multi millionaires after decades of public life? 


The left's lack of intellectual curiosity concerning this conundrum leads some of us to dismiss their calls of tax returns with a chuckle.

This post is your usual distraction to try and get the focus off of your man Romney. I just know this much each state has or doesn't have its own requirement for showing their tax returns. If it's a person running from my state, I question him/her on their tax returns and try to get them to release at least 4-6 years. But the President is my business because he wants to be my president and president of all the United States. Romney father set the gold standard of 12 years, I think 6-8 years would be fine to see what he did when  no one was looking and didn't have intentions to run for president. If it was me I  wouldn't mind if the people looked at ever tax record I have ever made for the last 60 some years,  because I am proud of my returns and have nothing to hide. SO woody If you're satisfied with your states income tax record on your Representative and Senator then I am satisfied because I couldn't do anything about it anyway, but Presidential election is different and I want to see Romney last 6-8 years of tax records because he going to over everyone's in-come tax returns. Can you make a yes or no answers, are you satisfied with your candidate Romney releasing only two years without any of your distractions? YES OR NO.  Because I am not satisfied and I think he maybe the worse presidential candidate we ever had in my lifetime running for president. He has no core values except his church and immediate family the rest of us he could care less and we are only tools to be used by him. He also has shown any love of country or obligation to his country of birth in his words or actions, nothing. Have you ever thought what if we all took our money outside this country like your man Romney did, and placed it in banks and tax haven like then Cayman Islands. Do you think it would have any consequences for our country?  kentay.

[Woody]

The most common response from dems and libs concerning candidates releasing tax returns is "he's running for President".  While I disagree with this does it not stand to reason that it is just as important for representatives and senators, who write and pass the tax code, to release theirs?  Is it just as important to see what tax breaks they pass and who gains advantage from them?  How exactly do public servant bureaucrats who enter public life as middlecass citizens become multi millionaires after decades of public life? 


The left's lack of intellectual curiosity concerning this conundrum leads some of us to dismiss their calls of tax returns with a chuckle.

This post is your usual distraction to try and get the focus off of your man Romney. I just know this much each state has or doesn't have its own requirement for showing their tax returns. If it's a person running from my state, I question him/her on their tax returns and try to get them to release at least 4-6 years. But the President is my business because he wants to be my president and president of all the United States. Romney father set the gold standard of 12 years, I think 6-8 years would be fine to see what he did when  no one was looking and didn't have intentions to run for president. If it was me I  wouldn't mind if the people looked at ever tax record I have ever made for the last 60 some years,  because I am proud of my returns and have nothing to hide. SO woody If you're satisfied with your states income tax record on your Representative and Senator then I am satisfied because I couldn't do anything about it anyway, but Presidential election is different and I want to see Romney last 6-8 years of tax records because he going to over everyone's in-come tax returns. Can you make a yes or no answers, are you satisfied with your candidate Romney releasing only two years without any of your distractions? YES OR NO.  Because I am not satisfied and I think he maybe the worse presidential candidate we ever had in my lifetime running for president. He has no core values except his church and immediate family the rest of us he could care less and we are only tools to be used by him. He also has shown any love of country or obligation to his country of birth in his words or actions, nothing. Have you ever thought what if we all took our money outside this country like your man Romney did, and placed it in banks and tax haven like then Cayman Islands. Do you think it would have any consequences for our country?  kentay.

That's nice. 


Distraction?    It seems most Americans could care less about Romney and his tax returns.  As a matter of fact you wanna discuss distractions?  With 43 or so straight months of over 8% unemployment, gas prices close to double what they were in Jan of 2009, GDP growth hovering at a dismal 2% or so, 5 trillion added to the debt, 4 years of trillion dollar annual deficits, manufacturing down, record highs for welfare and food stamps, housing starts down, inflation not even discussed, QE3 and to top it off the Middle East is in anti American chaos, this entire line of **** from you about romney's taxes IS NOTHING BUT A FUCKIN' distractions.  LMAO


Kentay, you make me laugh. Do you do parties?  Comedic entertainment is a must

[RWE]

While it stands to reason to examine the tax returns of senators and representatives, the Constitution doesn't attach the "high crimes and misdemeanors" restriction to any of those posts.  Just to the presidency.

It also says:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
And that includes presidential candidates. It has been a tradition for candidates to release tax records. Its not a law. Its also a tradition for candidates to release college and university records. We know that Obama has broken that tradition. Why don't you and your ilk apply the same standard to Obama and assume that his college records contain evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors?

[wbcoleman]

While it stands to reason to examine the tax returns of senators and representatives, the Constitution doesn't attach the "high crimes and misdemeanors" restriction to any of those posts.  Just to the presidency.

In place of impeachment, the Constitution provides that each House discipline its own members.  Therefore.... what?  Why shouldn't we see Charlie Rangel's tax returns?

[clistensprechen]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

 :strawman:






Remember, the president only signs bills that legislators pass.  Apparently you can care less about their financial situation.

Again--read the Constitution. The congress can't override the Constitution no matter what it passes.

[clistensprechen]

The most common response from dems and libs concerning candidates releasing tax returns is "he's running for President".  While I disagree with this does it not stand to reason that it is just as important for representatives and senators, who write and pass the tax code, to release theirs?  Is it just as important to see what tax breaks they pass and who gains advantage from them?  How exactly do public servant bureaucrats who enter public life as middlecass citizens become multi millionaires after decades of public life? 


The left's lack of intellectual curiosity concerning this conundrum leads some of us to dismiss their calls of tax returns with a chuckle.

This post is your usual distraction to try and get the focus off of your man Romney. I just know this much each state has or doesn't have its own requirement for showing their tax returns. If it's a person running from my state, I question him/her on their tax returns and try to get them to release at least 4-6 years. But the President is my business because he wants to be my president and president of all the United States. Romney father set the gold standard of 12 years, I think 6-8 years would be fine to see what he did when  no one was looking and didn't have intentions to run for president. If it was me I  wouldn't mind if the people looked at ever tax record I have ever made for the last 60 some years,  because I am proud of my returns and have nothing to hide. SO woody If you're satisfied with your states income tax record on your Representative and Senator then I am satisfied because I couldn't do anything about it anyway, but Presidential election is different and I want to see Romney last 6-8 years of tax records because he going to over everyone's in-come tax returns. Can you make a yes or no answers, are you satisfied with your candidate Romney releasing only two years without any of your distractions? YES OR NO.  Because I am not satisfied and I think he maybe the worse presidential candidate we ever had in my lifetime running for president. He has no core values except his church and immediate family the rest of us he could care less and we are only tools to be used by him. He also has shown any love of country or obligation to his country of birth in his words or actions, nothing. Have you ever thought what if we all took our money outside this country like your man Romney did, and placed it in banks and tax haven like then Cayman Islands. Do you think it would have any consequences for our country?  kentay.

:applause:

Showing that one is legal with the IRS has become the premier measuring stick for that "high crimes and misdemeanors" descript for the presidency, and insofar as the standard Birth Certificate form wouldn't satisfy cons, it's by this same token that they shouldn't expect Price Waterhouse et al summaries to substitute for actual past IRS return forms.

[wbcoleman]

clara, you are posting nonsense.  The impeachment clause has absolutely no connection to candidates for office releasing or not releasing their income tax returns.

[Woody]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

 :strawman:






Remember, the president only signs bills that legislators pass.  Apparently you can care less about their financial situation.

Again--read the Constitution. The congress can't override the Constitution no matter what it passes.

 :strawman:


Read the thread.  I am not making that argument.  The point is that tax code is law.  Those who write the law, create loopholes, deductions, and credits are congressmen and senators.  Yet you don't care about them and how they game the system.

[wbcoleman]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

 :strawman:

Remember, the president only signs bills that legislators pass.  Apparently you can care less about their financial situation.

Again--read the Constitution. The congress can't override the Constitution no matter what it passes.

 :strawman:

Read the thread.  I am not making that argument.  The point is that tax code is law.  Those who write the law, create loopholes, deductions, and credits are congressmen and senators.  Yet you don't care about them and how they game the system.

The bots will twist themselves into pretzels defending O on even the most trivial points!

[Woody]

Wrong. It's in the Constitution; it's a constitutional "straw man". Deal with it.

 :strawman:

Remember, the president only signs bills that legislators pass.  Apparently you can care less about their financial situation.

Again--read the Constitution. The congress can't override the Constitution no matter what it passes.

 :strawman:

Read the thread.  I am not making that argument.  The point is that tax code is law.  Those who write the law, create loopholes, deductions, and credits are congressmen and senators.  Yet you don't care about them and how they game the system.

The bots will twist themselves into pretzels defending O on even the most trivial points!

What I have learned is as long as you aren't running for president you can offshore money and investments, pay low tax rates, and take advantage of the tax code you helped write.