Page 123 of 135 FirstFirst ... 114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132 ... LastLast
Results 1,831 to 1,845 of 2015

Thread: 2018 American Political Scene

  1. #1831
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Got any unbias sources on that?
    Here, pick one:

    Despite severe staffing cuts, IRS enforcement operations bring in more revenue

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ks/1345350002/

    Trump budget proposes staff cuts within IRS, NIST, EPA; gives windfall to Census

    https://federalnewsnetwork.com/your-...all-to-census/


    My point in this reply is that IRS employees ballooned under the Obama Administration due to the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. Then cut under Trump in some areas, but allowed additional funds to the IRS in other areas. Those articles discuss this.

  2. #1832
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,263
    Trump donates each of his quarterly paychecks to charity so apparently, he isn't doing this job for the money. He does it because he is so sick of what this country has turned into. Probably as sick of it as people are that do not like him. Whatever.
    this is a meaningless statement because NO ONE becomes President "for the money"...they're already wealthy to begin with.

    but that certainly doesn't prevent him from making money anyways. the biggest difference between him and past Presidents is that Trump doesn't want to wait until -after- he's President to make book deals or speeches; he and his family are actively making money from his status now, to include hinting of Presidential favor for doing so. see Trump International Hotel, Trump-branded properties, Ivanka Trump's clothing and perfume line.

    China approved of a whole string of Ivanka Trump trademarks just before a Presidential level meeting, do you think that was a coincidence?

    he's in direct violation of the emolument clause, and that's -without- delving into the even sketchier stuff involving borderline tax fraud/evasion that the NYT has documented in depth...or the associations with the mafia. there's a good reason why Trump explictly said that Mueller going after his family finances would constitute a red-line. if he were clean, he'd have nothing to fear, right?
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  3. #1833
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,263
    My point in this reply is that IRS employees ballooned under the Obama Administration due to the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. Then cut under Trump in some areas, but allowed additional funds to the IRS in other areas. Those articles discuss this.
    Name:  IRS.png
Views: 72
Size:  87.0 KB
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #1834
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    Lame duck is what I believe you are seeking.

    I recall the "shellacking" Obama described during his administration mid-term. You recall that don't you? Well, it didn't lose democratic legitimacy then, and it's not going to now. You know why? Because respect should be shown to our President, no matter who he is. I viewed Obama as a lame and weak President but I respected him as our President. I really don't care for the personality of Trump but he does at least do what he said he was going to do or try to do as President. I don't vote for a President because I like or dislike him. Trump donates each of his quarterly paychecks to charity so apparently, he isn't doing this job for the money. He does it because he is so sick of what this country has turned into. Probably as sick of it as people are that do not like him. Whatever.
    It is what it is.
    Well firstly I do not recall Obama losing the 'popular vote' nor whatever the 'electoral college' vote in his election as President - though I thought Romney was the better bet myself. It's pretty clear that Romney was right regarding Muscovy now at least and Obama's cheap put down massively mistaken.

    In terms of respect it is said that you respect the rank. Have you always respected your Boss? Of course not. I may have to do what he/she says - sometimes - but that does not mean I have to respect them. Respect is earned not awarded with a stripe or an electoral victory. A President who has never visited US troops in Afghanistan and who won't go to a graveyard in France because it's raining, a man who lies continually and who's administration release doctored videos of journalists in order to ban them? A man who said he never had anything to with 'Russia'? That profits from his position? What respect is due?

    Make no mistake I do not have alot of time for my President (Poroshenko) either but he does not lie every time he opens his mouth at least - we just disagree in regard to some policy options in the normal way. Way different from telling blatant lies such as Trumpkin did a week before the recent elections when he said he was going to pass another tax cut next week - which was impossible. See the difference? One has a different view, the other is a liar. Which would you respect more?

  5. #1835
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    this is a meaningless statement because NO ONE becomes President "for the money"...they're already wealthy to begin with.
    Not true. Most become wealthy during and after their Presidential term. Obama wasn't wealthy, but he obviously is now.

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis
    but that certainly doesn't prevent him from making money anyways. the biggest difference between him and past Presidents is that Trump doesn't want to wait until -after- he's President to make book deals or speeches; he and his family are actively making money from his status now, to include hinting of Presidential favor for doing so. see Trump International Hotel, Trump-branded properties, Ivanka Trump's clothing and perfume line.

    China approved of a whole string of Ivanka Trump trademarks just before a Presidential level meeting, do you think that was a coincidence?
    That would be comparable to the outrageous speaking fees charged by Bill Clinton, wouldn't it? Maybe so far as the huge amounts of money received by the Clinton Foundation that aren't forthcoming lately?

    Quote Originally Posted by astralis
    he's in direct violation of the emolument clause, and that's -without- delving into the even sketchier stuff involving borderline tax fraud/evasion that the NYT has documented in depth...or the associations with the mafia. there's a good reason why Trump explictly said that Mueller going after his family finances would constitute a red-line. if he were clean, he'd have nothing to fear, right?
    Same thing I thought about Obama not releasing his college credentials. Maybe some people don't want you knowing how ignorant you are, among other things. Right?

  6. #1836
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Well firstly I do not recall Obama losing the 'popular vote' nor whatever the 'electoral college' vote in his election as President - though I thought Romney was the better bet myself. It's pretty clear that Romney was right regarding Muscovy now at least and Obama's cheap put down massively mistaken.
    I never said anything about Obama losing the popular vote. I referred to Obama's comment about his Congress taking a "shellacking" in the mid-terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper
    In terms of respect it is said that you respect the rank. Have you always respected your Boss? Of course not. I may have to do what he/she says - sometimes - but that does not mean I have to respect them. Respect is earned not awarded with a stripe or an electoral victory. A President who has never visited US troops in Afghanistan and who won't go to a graveyard in France because it's raining, a man who lies continually and who's administration release doctored videos of journalists in order to ban them? A man who said he never had anything to with 'Russia'? That profits from his position? What respect is due?

    Make no mistake I do not have alot of time for my President (Poroshenko) either but he does not lie every time he opens his mouth at least - we just disagree in regard to some policy options in the normal way. Way different from telling blatant lies such as Trumpkin did a week before the recent elections when he said he was going to pass another tax cut next week - which was impossible. See the difference? One has a different view, the other is a liar. Which would you respect more?
    I respect the position. I loved my mother and father dearly but one I never liked very much. I still respected both of them as they were my parents.

  7. #1837
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    I loved my mother and father dearly but one I never liked very much. I still respected both of them as they were my parents.
    I hated my Mater at times but still miss her now she is gone to Heaven (or Hell) so empathise with your parental relations feelings.

    The point as I recall was originally about legitimacy. I recognise we have 'representative democracies' and that such anomalies can occur by distribution of voting constituency populations moving etc such that the Party that gets the most representatives elected may not always get always have the most votes of the people; I can think offhand from old lessons of twice when the same happened in the UK. I do not dispute the legality of election - apart from the Muscovite interference and collusion issues - but was questioning what makes democratic legitimacy if you can lose (in vote terms) two elections in a row but still appoint whoever you like to oversee an inquiry that directly concerns you? Would losing 3,4,5 or more be 'legitimate' to - even if it were ruled 'legal'? Where do you draw the line between democratically legitimate and 'elected according to law' is my point.

  8. #1838
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Astralis:

    As to your "graph." I'm not disputing those amounts. IRS ballooned in staff by 2010. It was cut back down in 2012 which of course means less operating costs. Less government, less spending.

  9. #1839
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I hated my Mater at times but still miss her now she is gone to Heaven (or Hell) so empathise with your parental relations feelings.

    The point as I recall was originally about legitimacy. I recognise we have 'representative democracies' and that such anomalies can occur by distribution of voting constituency populations moving etc such that the Party that gets the most representatives elected may not always get always have the most votes of the people; I can think offhand from old lessons of twice when the same happened in the UK. I do not dispute the legality of election - apart from the Muscovite interference and collusion issues - but was questioning what makes democratic legitimacy if you can lose (in vote terms) two elections in a row but still appoint whoever you like to oversee an inquiry that directly concerns you? Would losing 3,4,5 or more be 'legitimate' to - even if it were ruled 'legal'? Where do you draw the line between democratically legitimate and 'elected according to law' is my point.
    That is a broad brush. But I will say that I think it is high time to revisit the "electoral" issue. I know why it was set up that way, but I feel uncomfortable about an election when someone wins the popular vote but the other wins the presidency. Just doesn't seem right to me.

  10. #1840
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,263
    julie,

    Not true. Most become wealthy during and after their Presidential term. Obama wasn't wealthy, but he obviously is now.
    eh...the Obamas were already wealthy in 2008 because of the books that Barack Obama had written-- Dreams from my Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). the book advance for the latter was $2 million. so yeah...wealthy.

    That would be comparable to the outrageous speaking fees charged by Bill Clinton, wouldn't it?
    no, because he gave those speeches AFTER he left the Presidency. there's no "pay to play" here. i would have no trouble with Trump doing the same thing, as he undoubtedly will.

    re: Clinton Foundation, feel free to compare that with the President's-- you tell me which is more transparent.

    Clinton Foundation:

    https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680

    Trump Foundation:

    https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16764

    Same thing I thought about Obama not releasing his college credentials. Maybe some people don't want you knowing how ignorant you are, among other things. Right?
    mm, are you really comparing Trump's reluctance for federal investigation into his financial record to Obama's reluctance to release academic records for public consumption...which by the way, no other Presidential candidate has done? we DO know that Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and was the president of the Harvard Law Review, so exactly what malfeasance or ignorance were you looking for?
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #1841
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,263
    julie,

    Astralis:

    As to your "graph." I'm not disputing those amounts. IRS ballooned in staff by 2010. It was cut back down in 2012 which of course means less operating costs. Less government, less spending.
    your original post said:

    My point in this reply is that IRS employees ballooned under the Obama Administration due to the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.
    the Affordable Care Act passed on March 23, 2010. most of its provisions only took effect starting January 1, 2014, such as the ACA marketplace.

    so no, the IRS didn't balloon under the Obama Administration, nor did it balloon because of the ACA.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  12. #1842
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Sir, that is incorrect
    I had thought this was about the returns before he became President.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    As I said, this is about the IRS not having the all-powerful unlimited abilities you're ascribing to them.
    I am ascribing them to have the ability to do their jobs. It is their responsibility to prove wrongdoing. If Trump is under audit, then, they're the ones who must prove that Trump did wrong, not anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    That's pretty close to the same argument that Donald Trump made. Why are you assuming that the Congress-idiots will be the ones with eyeglasses at the end of their nose, calculators in hand, surrounded by mountains of Trump's records?

    Reality: They'll be using some pretty damn smart people to do the actual work.
    That scares me and I do not subscribe to it. That people outside of Treasury knows more about how Treasury works than the people inside. However, let's say Trump has something to hide, he still have to avoid the red flag triggers in Treasury's computer systems (income comparisons with others, dealings with questionable companies, etc) and those are Class Protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    And you're once again assuming that that's the only thing to be found in his tax returns. Besides, we already know that the Trump Organization is already up to its eyeballs in bed with Russia. We heard it straight from the horse's ass: His own son.
    That does not mean that Trump was co-ordinating with Putin. That is what everybody is trying to prove.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Trump is fighting tooth and nail to shield his tax returns. WHY?
    I don't know but it is his right to fight tooth and nail. I'd be more worried when he doesn't have that right.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 13 Nov 18, at 22:40.

  13. #1843
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Julie View Post
    That is a broad brush. But I will say that I think it is high time to revisit the "electoral" issue. I know why it was set up that way, but I feel uncomfortable about an election when someone wins the popular vote but the other wins the presidency. Just doesn't seem right to me.
    You should see the electoral mess of a 'system' we have here! Some is 'Proportional Representation' where you just vote for a Party and they nominate their candidates - for favours and pennies etc. I could literally pay money and get on a 'party list' - how much dictates how far up the list you get; those at the top of the 'Party (favourite) list' get 'elected' first. Some areas are first the past the post normal but the constituencies have not been changed to adjust to population change since 1968. Think you got trouble?

  14. #1844
    Staff Emeritus Julie's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 03
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    10,840
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the Affordable Care Act passed on March 23, 2010. most of its provisions only took effect starting January 1, 2014, such as the ACA marketplace.

    so no, the IRS didn't balloon under the Obama Administration, nor did it balloon because of the ACA.
    I find that statement mind-boggling being as it does not take a rocket scientist to figure the IRS needs many more staff to handle the ACA, being it was going to be guided by the IRS. Good Lord.

    As millions of Americans brace for tax season, the Internal Revenue Service is requesting a $2 billion boost to its budget and 9,000 new employees as it prepares to enforce Obamacare’s tax provisions.

    President Obama released his $4 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2016 this week, which includes $13.9 billion for the Internal Revenue Service. The agency asked Congress for close to $2 billion more for operations than last year—a 16 percent increase.

    The billions of dollars will help the agency bolster its staff by adding more than 9,280 full-time employees. The proposed jump in employment at the IRS is an 11 percent increase from 2015.
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/02/...rce-obamacare/

  15. #1845
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,654
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    That does not mean that Trump was co-ordinating with Putin. That is what everybody is trying to prove.
    No no... just all his campaign team (and lawyer) were involved and talking to Moscow all the time - that his son and son in law met them at Trump Tower (and Trumpkin lied about why after), that he said he never had anything to with 'Russia'? That there were not computer chats passing? That he does not have a liking for 'that sort' of Lady but has affairs with 'film stars'? After the recent US election one "essentially viewing" Muscovite TV host said "Our agent in America has failed us."

    By the way they nabbed Rybolovlev - the guy who bought Trumpkin's house 'Maison l'Amitee' in Florida for about $60m more than it was worth in Morocco a couple of days ago; money laundering.

    P.S The other M... Monaco; https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ru...-probe-1394737
    Last edited by snapper; 13 Nov 18, at 23:14.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 American Political Scene
    By YellowFever in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2571
    Last Post: 29 Dec 17,, 21:34
  2. Lotsa great American political news out there today...
    By Bluesman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Aug 10,, 20:00
  3. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •