Trump's Tax Returns

[rogue06]

Where there's smoke there's fire was said about Hillary, about Bush, about Clinton, and several other presidents and leaders I can think of. There is usually some element of truth to it.

Except with Hillary it took a corrupt head of the FBI to proclaim her innocence and proceed from that presumption even before the investigation in order to put out the blaze.

[rogue06]

Aka, stuff all billionaries from Warren Buffet to Elon Musk is doing. Nobody likes to pay taxes. Billionaires especially. Try looking up how many crazy loopholes Apple and Steve Jobs get away with.

Buffet is in his own league due to his blatant two-faced hypocrisy:

And let's not forget billionaire Warren Buffett who notoriously wrote in the New York Times that he was against tax cuts and should be paying more (nothing stopping him from doing so) complaining that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. In fact, Hillary Clinton was a big supporter of the so-called "Buffett rule," which provides for a minimum 30% effective tax rate for the wealthy. Then it was revealed that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, of which he is chairman and CEO and is listed as its owner (controls 36.8% of it) admitted to still owing taxes for years from 2002 to 2009 to the tune of over $1 Billion.

It should also be noted that Buffett gets much of his money through other largely untaxed or low-taxed means than through what is considered individual income so it is no surprise that he pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary (who herself is a member of the 1% earning over $200,000 per year).

[Cow Poke]

He hasn't drained the swamp - he's kicked out it's former denizens and filled it with his own cronies.

That's called SOP in DC.

[carpedm9587]

That's called SOP in DC.

Yes indeed...

So much for electing an "outsider with business experience."

[Leonhard]

Buffet is in his own league due to his blatant two-faced hypocrisy:

Sometimes I wonder if its even moral to be that rich.

[carpedm9587]

Except with Hillary it took a corrupt head of the FBI to proclaim her innocence and proceed from that presumption even before the investigation in order to put out the blaze.

Oh horse hockey. Comey's report about Hillary was at the end at that point) of investigation. His decision to make a recommendation was prompted by the AG's withdrawing from the decision process because of her stupid decision about the meeting with Clinton on the airplane and the fall out. That same "corrupt head" (Comey) later re-opened an email investigation days before a national election (at least contributing to, if not causing, her loss), never disclosed that an investigation into the relationship between Trump's organization and Russia was also underway (benefiting the Trump organization) and was reviewed by the Inspector General's office, which found that Comey had not followed FBI procedure on several fronts, but showed no taint of political partisanship or corruption. This is an IG office running within the Trump administration, if you'll recall.

Really, Rogue, putting forward this kind of miss-information and ignoring any/all evidence that disputes the claims is really beneath you.

[JonathanL]

Sometimes I wonder if its even moral to be that rich.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily immoral, but when you've accumulated enough wealth that you don't have to work a single day in your life anymore and can still live relatively comfortably (not even going to attempt to quantify how that looks) I'm beginning to wonder what the point would be of trying to increase your money any further.

[Cow Poke]

...This is an IG office running within the Trump administration, if you'll recall....

And that's absolutely absurd to imply that a bunch of career politicians in an office are somehow "Trump's Administration". Slap yourself on the back of the head for that one.

[Leonhard]

I'm not sure if it's necessarily immoral, but when you've accumulated enough wealth that you don't have to work a single day in your life anymore and can still live relatively comfortably (not even going to attempt to quantify how that looks) I'm beginning to wonder what the point would be of trying to increase your money any further.

At some point, the money you have, starts to become power.

[carpedm9587]

And that's absolutely absurd to imply that a bunch of career politicians in an office are somehow "Trump's Administration". Slap yourself on the back of the head for that one.

The IG office includes people from multiple administrations spanning multiple years. The leadership is typically replaced by the current administration. It is highly speculative to suggest that the leadership from the current administration would permit a report to come forward that was unfavorable to the current administration, or favorable to a previous administration or political enemy, if it is not actually true.

When we begin to cast doubt on the ethics watchdogs, we have truly entered into a place of cynicism that is one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. Unless I have actual cause to be suspicious, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. So far, the IG's reports have been pretty even handed, as far as I can tell. I have no reason to question them.

[Cow Poke]

The IG office includes people from multiple administrations spanning multiple years.

Exactly, so implying that it's "Trump's Administration" is rather misleading.

The leadership is typically replaced by the current administration.

You mean the blowhards - while the people who do the actual work remain in place.

It is highly speculative to suggest that the leadership from the current administration would permit a report to come forward that was unfavorable to the current administration, or favorable to a previous administration or political enemy, if it is not actually true.

It's highly speculative to suggest that it's "Trump's Administration's" IG.

When we begin to cast doubt on the ethics watchdogs, we have truly entered into a place of cynicism that is one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. Unless I have actual cause to be suspicious, I try to give the benefit of the doubt. So far, the IG's reports have been pretty even handed, as far as I can tell. I have no reason to question them.

I think you tend to give the benefit of the doubt whichever way fits your preconceived notion.

[rogue06]

Oh horse hockey. Comey's report about Hillary was at the end at that point) of investigation. His decision to make a recommendation was prompted by the AG's withdrawing from the decision process because of her stupid decision about the meeting with Clinton on the airplane and the fall out. That same "corrupt head" (Comey) later re-opened an email investigation days before a national election (at least contributing to, if not causing, her loss), never disclosed that an investigation into the relationship between Trump's organization and Russia was also underway (benefiting the Trump organization) and was reviewed by the Inspector General's office, which found that Comey had not followed FBI procedure on several fronts, but showed no taint of political partisanship or corruption. This is an IG office running within the Trump administration, if you'll recall.

Really, Rogue, putting forward this kind of miss-information and ignoring any/all evidence that disputes the claims is really beneath you.

Perhaps for accuracy's sake I shoulda said that Comey wrote the exoneration before bothering to look at what the investigation uncovered.

[Cow Poke]

The IG office includes people from multiple administrations spanning multiple years. The leadership is typically replaced by the current administration.

wrong.jpg

Michael E. Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 16, 2012, following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Mr. Horowitz was previously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 to serve a six-year term as a Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

As Inspector General, Mr. Horowitz oversees a nationwide workforce of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors, attorneys, and support staff whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in DOJ programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in Department operations. Since 2015, he has simultaneously served as the Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of all 73 federal Inspectors General.

[carpedm9587]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31694[/ATTACH]

Michael E. Horowitz was sworn in as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 16, 2012, following his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Mr. Horowitz was previously confirmed by the Senate in 2003 to serve a six-year term as a Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

As Inspector General, Mr. Horowitz oversees a nationwide workforce of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors, attorneys, and support staff whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in DOJ programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in Department operations. Since 2015, he has simultaneously served as the Chair of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of all 73 federal Inspectors General.

Interesting - I didn't realize the IG office is an exception to the rule. So let me get this straight then - solely because the leadership of the department was nominated by Obama, there is cause to suspect/doubt the reports they provide. Is that what you are arguing?

[carpedm9587]

Exactly, so implying that it's "Trump's Administration" is rather misleading.

You mean the blowhards - while the people who do the actual work remain in place.

It's highly speculative to suggest that it's "Trump's Administration's" IG.

I think you tend to give the benefit of the doubt whichever way fits your preconceived notion.

No - and you have absolutely no basis for making that statement, other than the fact that you and I typically have opposing political views.

And THAT, at the end of the day, is the heart of our problem in America today. If someone holds a different opposing view - they are deceitful and hypocritical in their points of view. Your insinuation and it's offensiveness is dully noted. You're wrong.

But if history repeats itself - you won't believe that either.