Democrats To Present Another Bill To Give Americans Transparency

[ClosedCaption]

how is this?... if you want transparency for vetting, do it COMPLETELY.. there is no use doing it half assed or just focused on something YOUR agenda benefits from

So if you do it across the board and all the way, I am for it... if it is just this selective bullshit that is clearly agenda driven, then I am against it

I agree, so why do you think it's selective?

Jesus Christ... do I have to say it AGAIN..?? I have only posted it about 30 times this morning

Because it is ONLY focused around the tax return... and as pointed out, ain't it a coincidence that it is the target to attack Romney in the latest class warfare attempt??

If you want open vetting, do it ACROSS THE BOARD... tax returns, school records, employee reviews, military records, court records, driving records, THE WHOLE 9 YARDS

Ok, I didnt hear an argument against tax returns here. In fact it sounds like you are in favor of it but only under certain conditions that has not been customary in other elections. If they required all those things to be included, you would ask for more in an attempt to argue why none of those things should be asked for.

Every canidate has provided more than 2 years of tax returns....Romney is the first and it's a terrible precedent to set. But like Executive Privilege you'll be for it until a dem tries to do the same then you'll flip.

 

[Too Tall]

I have very little doubt that MITT's tax returns are up to IRS snuff.

One cannot help but wonder, however, how the American people will receive the news about the various tax breaks and advantages that MITT's international banking machinations (all perfectly legal of course) will have on their attitude about MITT's patriotic committment to the USA.

Let's recap, shall we?

I think Mitt has broken no laws.

I think the American people will be somewhat shocked and likely somewhat pissed about how well those LAWS allowed MITT to avoid taxes.

No shock here. Tax laws are written by Congress for tax payers to use in computing their taxes. Don't like the tax laws, petition your lawmakers to change them. And, as nicely as I can say it, until that happens, STFU.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Romney HAS released his tax information. The beef Democrats have is that it was two examples and not ten, and they couldn't find anything politically destructive enough to run with.
As I said, the only thing "transparent" is the political motivation of Democrats. They weren't running around 4 years ago demanding that all candidates give up ten years' worth of tax returns, were they? The idea that this proposal isn't targeting Romney is ridiculous given the timing of it.

Do give us your excuse why this type of seizure would be allowable under the Fourth. What's the "probable cause"?
"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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

He's released only the years for when he decided to run for POTUS. Of course those years would be done on the level. No one running for office has ever (correct me if I'm wrong) released only two years of tax returns. Mitt is the first (correct me if Im wrong).

So what they werent asking for it 4 years ago. That means nothing since both candidates did it voluntarily. You wouldnt need a bill like that since every canidate has released tax returns voluntarily. The 4th doesnt apply here...They are requiring that canidates release them. The 4th says that people cannot search his shit. So the 4th is protected and you can stop pretending it's in danger.

Are you for all future candidates releasing their tax information? Or do you care about money in politics at all? Because repubs keep talking about changing the culture in Washington, how Washington and pols are bad...then those same repubs fight tooth and nail to protect those same pols. You hate it and like it all at the same time.

Romney's tax returns were sufficient for the IRS, so that makes them "on the level". There are no specific allegations of wrong-doing that could be considered as "probable cause" to procure a warrant. The information taken wouldn't be used for any official function of the government, but rather released to the public in order to satisfy political curiosities.

Candidates do not give up their citizen rights in order to run for or to hold office. So, while it's traditional nowadays for candidates to release tax returns, they can't really be compelled if they refuse.

In terms of candidates who have "released only two years of tax returns", John McCain in the last election only released two.
Outrage over tax returns a replay of past campaigns | wtsp.com

I didnt mention the IRS or possible wrong doing for warrants. I dont know what you are talking about. The information is being asked for because it is usual and customary to provide more than 2 years of tax returns. I'm sorry you dont like it but take it up with History *shrugs*. No they cannot be compelled to do so, but the public does not have to suspend disbelief because you or Romney think they should.

 

[Too Tall]

Here's an idea... why don't they just be transparent? It's like that goofball Obama... he needs a law so that his taxes will be higher.

These fuckers are such hypocrites.

That would be great, but it's not working out that way. The democrats are more than happy to be open with the american people and release their records, where the GOP thugs want to hide them at all costs.

Most members of Congress keep their tax returns secret | McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Rep. Nancy Pelosi was emphatic. Mitt Romney’s refusal to release more than two years of his personal tax returns, she said, makes him unfit to win confirmation as a member of the president’s Cabinet, let alone to hold the high office himself.

Sen. Harry Reid went farther: Romney’s refusal to make public more of his tax records makes him unfit to be a dogcatcher.

They do not, however, think that standard of transparency should apply to them. The two Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives are among hundreds of senators and representatives from both parties who refused to release their tax records. Just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities in response to requests from McClatchy over the last three months. Another 19 replied that they wouldn’t release the information, and the remainder never responded to the query.

Read more here: Most members of Congress keep their tax returns secret | McClatchy

Yeah, what the fuck ever...

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Speaker of the House next in line if something happens to the President and the Vice President? At the very minimum, all of the Congress critters that are in the Presidential succession list should be included in any list that makes income tax disclosure mandatory.

I think it is a bunch of baloney to start with, but fair is fair.

 

[DiamondDave]

I agree, so why do you think it's selective?

Jesus Christ... do I have to say it AGAIN..?? I have only posted it about 30 times this morning

Because it is ONLY focused around the tax return... and as pointed out, ain't it a coincidence that it is the target to attack Romney in the latest class warfare attempt??

If you want open vetting, do it ACROSS THE BOARD... tax returns, school records, employee reviews, military records, court records, driving records, THE WHOLE 9 YARDS

Ok, I didnt hear an argument against tax returns here. In fact it sounds like you are in favor of it but only under certain conditions that has not been customary in other elections. If they required all those things to be included, you would ask for more in an attempt to argue why none of those things should be asked for.

Every canidate has provided more than 2 years of tax returns....Romney is the first and it's a terrible precedent to set. But like Executive Privilege you'll be for it until a dem tries to do the same then you'll flip.

The argument is for transparency in vetting of the presidential candidates.. but it is SELECTIVE in targeting (coincidence? I think not) the buzzworthy issue that the DEMs are using for their latest class warfare rhetoric and attacks... if you are going to do it, do it all the way... to have this selective targeting, fuck no...

And NOT EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS PROVIDED MORE THAN 2 YEARS.. that is a FLAT OUT LIE... Romney is hardly the first... how many years do you think Reagan provided? or even as recently as McCain??

 

[ClosedCaption]

Jesus Christ... do I have to say it AGAIN..?? I have only posted it about 30 times this morning

Because it is ONLY focused around the tax return... and as pointed out, ain't it a coincidence that it is the target to attack Romney in the latest class warfare attempt??

If you want open vetting, do it ACROSS THE BOARD... tax returns, school records, employee reviews, military records, court records, driving records, THE WHOLE 9 YARDS

Ok, I didnt hear an argument against tax returns here. In fact it sounds like you are in favor of it but only under certain conditions that has not been customary in other elections. If they required all those things to be included, you would ask for more in an attempt to argue why none of those things should be asked for.

Every canidate has provided more than 2 years of tax returns....Romney is the first and it's a terrible precedent to set. But like Executive Privilege you'll be for it until a dem tries to do the same then you'll flip.

The argument is for transparency in vetting of the presidential candidates.. but it is SELECTIVE in targeting (coincidence? I think not) the buzzworthy issue that the DEMs are using for their latest class warfare rhetoric and attacks... if you are going to do it, do it all the way... to have this selective targeting, fuck no...

And NOT EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS PROVIDED MORE THAN 2 YEARS.. that is a FLAT OUT LIE... Romney is hardly the first... how many years do you think Reagan provided? or even as recently as McCain??

Anything they would require would be selective because they couldnt say "give me everything" they would have to select things. I said correct me if I'm wrong so how many years did Reagan and McCain provide?

 

[Conservative]

why have less than 20 members of congress released their tax returns?

 

[Chris]

Republicans represent the super rich and the oil companies.

That's it.

 

[freedombecki]

With the GOP shooting down the disclose act last week, proving again they will do everything they can to hide their wealthy masters instead of presenting transparency, the democrats again stand on the side of the american people.

Democrats are currently in the works to present new transparency legislation that would require all presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns, as well as disclose all assets including overseas bank accounts.

I'm sure when it comes up for a vote, the GOP trash will filibuster it. The GOP would rather hold their middle fingers up to the american people then disclose transparency,...

Dem bill would require 10 years of tax disclosures by presidential candidates - The Hill's On The Money

Most people are only required to disclose only 2 years of tax disclosures.

This is a phony bill to place everyone on the examination table due to equality laws.

And you know how those little Omerta oafs in the DNC are: they are hot to expose an rival's flaws, while concealing flaws ten times that size in the best of them.

Don't fall for it, USA!!! It's just another chit in the chain to making America into a Marxist state where they are protected and their adversaries are not. Just say no to stupid loopholes they build for themselves to hide in to snipe at other people not in lockstep with their heists.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Notice the rw'ers wont say they are for or against this. They only seek to distract. Dont believe me, ask them and they will around the issue and bring up anything except a straight answer

If it covers anyone running for national office, not just the president, would you support it?

If it would, I would. What's your answer?

I said that back on Page1 and NOBODY responded, that's why I know it's political hackery and nothing more...

 

[DiamondDave]

ok, i didnt hear an argument against tax returns here. In fact it sounds like you are in favor of it but only under certain conditions that has not been customary in other elections. If they required all those things to be included, you would ask for more in an attempt to argue why none of those things should be asked for.

Every canidate has provided more than 2 years of tax returns....romney is the first and it's a terrible precedent to set. But like executive privilege you'll be for it until a dem tries to do the same then you'll flip.

the argument is for transparency in vetting of the presidential candidates.. But it is selective in targeting (coincidence? I think not) the buzzworthy issue that the dems are using for their latest class warfare rhetoric and attacks... If you are going to do it, do it all the way... To have this selective targeting, fuck no...

And not every presidential candidate has provided more than 2 years.. That is a flat out lie... Romney is hardly the first... How many years do you think reagan provided? Or even as recently as mccain??

anything they would require would be selective because they couldnt say "give me everything" they would have to select things. I said correct me if i'm wrong so how many years did reagan and mccain provide?

2

 

[Murf76]

He's released only the years for when he decided to run for POTUS. Of course those years would be done on the level. No one running for office has ever (correct me if I'm wrong) released only two years of tax returns. Mitt is the first (correct me if Im wrong).

So what they werent asking for it 4 years ago. That means nothing since both candidates did it voluntarily. You wouldnt need a bill like that since every canidate has released tax returns voluntarily. The 4th doesnt apply here...They are requiring that canidates release them. The 4th says that people cannot search his shit. So the 4th is protected and you can stop pretending it's in danger.

Are you for all future candidates releasing their tax information? Or do you care about money in politics at all? Because repubs keep talking about changing the culture in Washington, how Washington and pols are bad...then those same repubs fight tooth and nail to protect those same pols. You hate it and like it all at the same time.

Romney's tax returns were sufficient for the IRS, so that makes them "on the level". There are no specific allegations of wrong-doing that could be considered as "probable cause" to procure a warrant. The information taken wouldn't be used for any official function of the government, but rather released to the public in order to satisfy political curiosities.

Candidates do not give up their citizen rights in order to run for or to hold office. So, while it's traditional nowadays for candidates to release tax returns, they can't really be compelled if they refuse.

In terms of candidates who have "released only two years of tax returns", John McCain in the last election only released two.
Outrage over tax returns a replay of past campaigns | wtsp.com

I didnt mention the IRS or possible wrong doing for warrants. I dont know what you are talking about. The information is being asked for because it is usual and customary to provide more than 2 years of tax returns. I'm sorry you dont like it but take it up with History *shrugs*. No they cannot be compelled to do so, but the public does not have to suspend disbelief because you or Romney think they should.

I'm talking about the topic of this thread... which would be Democrats in Congress attempting to create legislation which would be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. As I said, candidates don't give up their citizen rights, and legislators can't abrogate those rights constitutionally. Congress can't just seize people's "papers" without a warrant which would require probable cause.

Romney has done nothing wrong; he hasn't even done anything particularly atypical.
Democrats should be ashamed of this effort by their congresscritters to use legislative power toward their own political ends, but sorry to say, I don't really expect they will be.

 

[freedombecki]

Republicans represent the super rich and the oil companies.

That's it.

Like Democrat kingpin George Soros, 22nd richest man in the world?

 

[tjvh]

If Obama is so transparent let him release the documents to Fast and Furious and his college records . Until then Shut up

This topic has nothing to do with Obama, not to mention he's already released his tax returns, willard hasn't.

Until he does, go fuck yourself.

Romney already released his 2010, and 2011 Tax Returns genius. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you.

 

[GuyPinestra]

No release of tax returns is required of ANY Presidential candidate. NONE!

If you think it is, show me the fucking LAW.

It is, however, the LAW to obey a Congressional subpoena. A law which has been ignored by this President through his improper use of Executive Privilege.

 

[freedombecki]

Romney's tax returns were sufficient for the IRS, so that makes them "on the level". There are no specific allegations of wrong-doing that could be considered as "probable cause" to procure a warrant. The information taken wouldn't be used for any official function of the government, but rather released to the public in order to satisfy political curiosities.

Candidates do not give up their citizen rights in order to run for or to hold office. So, while it's traditional nowadays for candidates to release tax returns, they can't really be compelled if they refuse.

In terms of candidates who have "released only two years of tax returns", John McCain in the last election only released two.
Outrage over tax returns a replay of past campaigns | wtsp.com

I didnt mention the IRS or possible wrong doing for warrants. I dont know what you are talking about. The information is being asked for because it is usual and customary to provide more than 2 years of tax returns. I'm sorry you dont like it but take it up with History *shrugs*. No they cannot be compelled to do so, but the public does not have to suspend disbelief because you or Romney think they should.

I'm talking about the topic of this thread... which would be Democrats in Congress attempting to create legislation which would be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. As I said, candidates don't give up their citizen rights, and legislators can't abrogate those rights constitutionally. Congress can't just seize people's "papers" without a warrant which would require probable cause.

Romney has done nothing wrong; he hasn't even done anything particularly atypical.
Democrats should be ashamed of this effort by their congresscritters to use legislative power toward their own political ends, but sorry to say, I don't really expect they will be.

I agree, Can you imagine the gall of a governing body that would destroy another one of our Bill of Rights, as this:

The Fourth Amendment - 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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

I can't believe the Democrats would suggest such a thing after they've already gone after the Second Amendment on a never-ending basis to disarm people in big cities. Oh, wait, the Party that insisted none of the Congress read Obamacare, just pass it?

OK, they might go after the 4th amendment, I can see this, but I don't like it.

 

[freedombecki]

If Obama is so transparent let him release the documents to Fast and Furious and his college records . Until then Shut up

This topic has nothing to do with Obama, not to mention he's already released his tax returns, willard hasn't.

Until he does, go fuck yourself.

Romney already released his 2010, and 2011 Tax Returns genius. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you.

Nothing is ever enough for the LLWW.

 

[Murf76]

I didnt mention the IRS or possible wrong doing for warrants. I dont know what you are talking about. The information is being asked for because it is usual and customary to provide more than 2 years of tax returns. I'm sorry you dont like it but take it up with History *shrugs*. No they cannot be compelled to do so, but the public does not have to suspend disbelief because you or Romney think they should.

I'm talking about the topic of this thread... which would be Democrats in Congress attempting to create legislation which would be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. As I said, candidates don't give up their citizen rights, and legislators can't abrogate those rights constitutionally. Congress can't just seize people's "papers" without a warrant which would require probable cause.

Romney has done nothing wrong; he hasn't even done anything particularly atypical.
Democrats should be ashamed of this effort by their congresscritters to use legislative power toward their own political ends, but sorry to say, I don't really expect they will be.

I agree, Can you imagine the gall of a governing body that would destroy another one of our Bill of Rights, as this:

The Fourth Amendment - 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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

I can't believe the Democrats would suggest such a thing after they've already gone after the Second Amendment on a never-ending basis to disarm people in big cities. Oh, wait, the Party that insisted none of the Congress read Obamacare, just pass it?

OK, they might go after the 4th amendment, I can see this, but I don't like it.

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but alas... not so much.

 

[Black_Label]

Republicans represent the super rich and the oil companies.

That's it.

Like Democrat kingpin George Soros, 22nd richest man in the world?

No, big oil republicans puppet masters like the Koch's, the 12th richest men in the word.

 

[Meister]

Republicans represent the super rich and the oil companies.

That's it.

Like Democrat kingpin George Soros, 22nd richest man in the world?

No, big oil republicans puppet masters like the Koch's, the 12th richest men in the word.

You talk like there is a difference between the two parties and their rich base.
At the end of the day they're all the same, B_K.....no difference at all, except for an R and D.