2018 American Political Scene

[TopHatter]

Yes he cut the budget $239 million (14,000 staffers). The IRS isn't squeaky clean either:
https://www.atr.org/trump-budget-cut...ng-239-million

My point was not to defend the IRS, it was to demonstrate that the IRS doesn't have the resources to go after people as thoroughly as, say, the KGB.

That also does not wash, Joe. These are the people tasked with going through Trump's records with a fine tooth comb. While I am sure the chances of an audit are down, the audits themselves must be the best Treasury can muster. The only way these records could be of any use is that there was no audit and somehow, Trump's returns did not raise any red flags in Treasury own foreignsic accounting computer systems. Not impossible but improbable given how much we already know about Russian money laundering schemes.

Sir, that is incorrect

Nominees for ambassadorships and cabinet positions are grilled during background checks by IRS agents to ensure that they’re not disguising personal expenses as tax-deductible business costs. But presidential candidates don’t get the same scrutiny.

This ain't about the police being downsized. This is the DA lining up his arguements in court to sink the perp.

As I said, this is about the IRS not having the all-powerful unlimited abilities you're ascribing to them.

However, if Treasury's forensic accountants can find nothing, then the chances are damned low that a Committee of unprofessional non-accountants are going to find something.

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.

This again does not address the point that Putin ain't anywhere stupid enough to have anything traced to him from Trump and that includes Trump himself.

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.

Trump is fighting tooth and nail to shield his tax returns. WHY?

[Julie]

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.

[astralis]

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?

[astralis]

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.

[snapper]

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?

[Julie]

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.

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?

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?

[Julie]

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.

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.

[snapper]

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.

[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.

[Julie]

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.

[astralis]

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?

[astralis]

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.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir, that is incorrect

I had thought this was about the returns before he became President.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[snapper]

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?

[Julie]

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/