no tax return, no place on ballot

[danielpalos]

How can it be unconstitutional for the state to require tax returns for gubernatorial and presidential candidates in a state primary?

Because Pre-Existing Federal Law Says
Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS ONLY
California Doesn't Have Standing To Even ASK To Examine Them
Let Alone Standing To Enact Their Impotent Little Law

Nor Does California, New York
Or Any Other State Have Standing
To Remove The Republican Party Nominee
From ANY State Ballot For ANY Reason
Which Is What This Boils Down To

And Why The Republican Nominee For President (TRUMP)
Will Be On The Ballot Of ALL 50 STATES
And All The Hoping, And Wishing, And Praying
Won't Change A Thing

50 Pages Of MORE Proof
Democrats Have No Idea How Our Elections Work

Our federal Constitution is express not implied.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You spout the constitution. Where in it does it specifically cover this? Just throwing that out there may sound good in your head but to the rest of us it sounds like throwing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks.

I didn't spout the constitution. I read it.

I've color coded a few important parts for your convenience.

This part of the Constitution determines who is eligible to be elected as POTUS:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
- ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

This part determines that the Federal government cannot determine who has the right to be the Republican nominee in their state:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-AMENDMENT 1

This Part of the Constitution ensures that states cannot remove rights from citizens provided in the Bill of Rights, and other rights:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within"
-AMENDMENT 14


Imagine what would have happened if Democrats, after losing their slaves, Jim Crow laws, and Segregation battles, had been allowed to make it illegal for Blacks to run for President.

Yes, without due process. And the State can use due process to require all candidates to present X number of years of tax returns to be on THEIR ballots. And it's THEIR ballots, not the Federal ballots. It can be done through a vote, their own state government or even their own court system. You should have highlighted "WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW" which covers quite a large margin of the states rights.

You keep trying to make it a racial thing. It's not even close. It's a states right thing. By trying to make a racial thing that tells me that you may be a racist yourself.

 

[karpenter]

If you think that is an impressive rebuttal......well it is typical.

 

[Flopper]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Tax returns contain important information about a candidate that voters need to know, particularly in today's world of false news, twitter attacks, and an Internet which amplifies all false claims.

A candidate’s tax returns include information about what a candidate owns, which can let voters know of possible conflicts of interest and whether there are entanglements with foreign businesses and foreign governments. They reveal whether a candidate owes money and to whom.

 

[karpenter]

We Would Have States All Over
Dropping Opposition Party Nominees

Think About That
I Don't Think Even Banana Republics Are That Blatant
But Here Comes The DEMOCRAT PARTY
And Democrats BELIEVE It !!

HA-HAA !!

 

[karpenter]

And the State can use due process to require all candidates to present X number of years of tax returns to be on THEIR ballots.

Nope

But You Go Ahead And Believe
What Your Imagination Pulled Out Of The Ether

 

[Andylusion]

I just explained why hospitals would close and doctors would quit. No business can operate at a loss or even break even for that matter. Do you think an American wants to spend 8 years of their life racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to become a physician only to work until 50 years old before it's paid off?

There is only one way to approach the healthcare problem, and that is analyze why it's so expensive in the first place. I guarantee you government is mostly responsible for that. After we greatly reduce the cost for healthcare, then let's figure out a way to pay for it. But this approach of paying for something that's out of control cost-wise is pure stupidity. That's why Commie Care is such a failure.

Now as to the tax rate. Yes, people paid higher taxes, but there were not many places left to go. Overseas travel was dangerous and expensive. Communications were antiquated and long distance was expensive, unreliable and the sound quality was miserable.

Today a business owner can pack up and move out of the country with no problem. He can keep track of his investments up to the minute on his or her cell phone. He can have corporate meetings on Skype or other means of virtual gatherings. With radar and satellites, overseas travel has never been safer.

See, what you don’t get is, 1st world countries in Europe have great socialist healthcare systems and there’s no critical shortage of doctors. You act as though our system is the best and when really it is the worst among developed nations. And I’ll tell you why it is worst and the most expensive: it’s a ridiculous for-profit system. People pay for prescription drugs at sky rocket rates. The same drugs in other countries cost a fraction of the same price. That shit is deliberate. Lobbyists made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

I don’t understand what point you’re making here. Regardless of the limitations at the time, rich people paid more in effective taxes and the middle class thrived.

I was not alive in the 50's, I was born in 1960, and let me tell you, nobody was thriving back then.

There is no critical shortage of doctors in socialized healthcare? Why don't you visit one country north where people wait forever to have serious medical issues addressed?

Being a truck driver in Cleveland, I often rub elbows with Canadian drivers. While waiting to get loaded or unloaded, we often talk.

I try to bring up the healthcare situation here and there. The younger drivers tell me they love their system. The older drivers tell me to keep what we have, or we will be sorry if in any way duplicate their system.

Show me one country where you think the healthcare system is perfect, and I'll provide several articles saying it's not so, because every country in the world has healthcare issues including the US. Ours may be different in the way of problems, but don't kid yourself thinking they don't have problems as well.

So you want government to control prescription prices? Great idea.

Hillary's Vaccine Shortage

Price controls are proven to be a really bad idea. We have a long history of price control policies going back to the 1930s. Every one of them ended in disaster. The fact that people still propose price controls demonstrates a horrible failure of our education system and a general ignorance of basic economics.

Only competition and efforts to increase the supply can control prices. Government regulation is a big log jam on supply.

.

What people don't understand is we are the innovator of many drugs in 70'sthe world. But it's a tedious task as well.

It takes anywhere form 5 to 10 years for a new drug to hit the American market thanks to the FDA and trial lawyers. When a company creates a new drug, it has to undergo all kinds of government testing. It's also hundreds of thousands pieces of paperwork that goes along with it.

But after (let's say) you spent the hundreds of millions of dollars for all this government testing. You invested 7 years of combatting red tape, and now the FDA simply says "No thanks, we will not approve it!" What do you do?

What you do is increase the price of the drugs you already have on the market. That's the problem.

But oh! other countries pay less for drugs than we do!!!! This is true, but other countries also never had to do the testing that our companies have to. So if the drug makes it to our market, they can charge much cheaper prices in other countries where the cost to market the drug is almost nothing because we paid for all the mandated research.

Then there is the liability issue no other country has. Somebody here dies because of a drug. The family can sue them right out of business. So the manufacture of the drugs needs to include a liability cost because somebody somewhere in the US is going to sue them, and we have to pay for that as well.

US citizens pay so the rest of the world can have cheap drugs? That's your preferred method?

The drugs are cheap in other countries because they have universal healthcare and their government REFUSES to pay the outrageous prices.

We don't have those same government protections because our system is based on profit. Billions and billions of our healthcare dollars do not go to healthcare. They go to insurance company and private healthcare profits. We even have to give up our access to the United States court system in order to receive treatment in many cases through forced arbitration agreements.

We fall further and further behind the rest of the first world.

US citizens pay so the rest of the world can have cheap drugs? That's your preferred method?

I don't think you are quite understanding what he is saying.

The Cost Of Developing Drugs Is Insane. That Paper That Says Otherwise Is Insanely Bad

For years, the pharmaceutical industry has relied on estimates from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, the most recent of which that puts the cost of bringing a medicine from invention to pharmacy shelves at $2.7 billion.​

Here is the point that you are missing.

What Ray is pointing out, is not that this is the "preferred method", but that this is the reality of the drug market.

Someone has to pay the bill.

A drug company easily spends BILLIONS of dollars developing a drug.

How are you going to earn back that $2.7 Billion you spent making that drug, selling it for $100 a bottle? Well you wouldn't.

So what would happen? The entire industry would go bankrupt can close.

If you spend $2.7 Billion, you have to earn back $2.7, plus a profit. If you don't make a profit, you close and go bankrupt too.

So someone has to pay the bill.

If no one pays the bill, the company goes broke and closes. Then you don't have to worry about paying a high price for medication, because there will not be any medication for you to buy.

So back to the point being made here.....

The reason why these companies can afford to charge France a lower price, is because the US is paying the bill.

Let me put it another way...

Say you are running a flower shop. It costs you $500,000 dollars to open the shop, but the cost of an individual bouquet of flowers is just $5. So you could sell them for just $10, and make a profit, but you would never earn back that half-million dollars you spent. You would be better off selling the shop, and getting your half-million back.

So you sell the flowers for $30 each. Now you are making a healthy enough profit, you can earn back that half million, and make a profit on that half million investment.

Then one day, a particular customer comes to you, and says "We're not paying $30 for each one. We'll pay you $10."

You think about it, you have a ton of customers paying the $30 each. Only this one wants to pay $10. Since you have enough paying the full price, you are going to make your money back. So the only question is, do you sell to this one customer and get a low-profit, or don't sell and make no profit?

So you agree, that this one customer can pay only $10 each, only because you have enough customers paying the full price, to make back the half million you invested.

That situation is what is happening in the drug industry right now.

The companies are spending billions of dollars to make these drugs. They can only afford to do that because they can earn back that money in the US market.

They are charging a lower price to some countries throughout Europe, because they can afford to do so, because they are making back the money on the investment here in the US.

This is why when the Massachusetts tried to cap medication prices under Romney Care, the companies openly said they would simply stop selling in the MA market.

They simply can't do that. If they lower the price on drugs in the US market, then they'll go bankrupt. You can't spend $2.7 Billion to make a drug, and then sell it for $30.

Again... Someone has to pay the bill. There is no free lunch.

And by the way, this is one of the problems I have with people who talk about how great the health care is in Europe. Many new drugs, are simply not available there. Newer drugs that have been on the US market for several years, are still not available in Europe... specifically because the governments of Europe refuse to pay the price for those drugs.

Then you say that Europeans are happier with their health care. Yeah, when you don't even know that a medication that can help you exists, it's easy to think you are getting good care. I was reading a blog by a guy who married a German woman, and moved to Germany. He was talking about how he would go to the doctor, and ask about a medication that was common in the US, and the Doctor would tell him no such medication exists.

Yeah, they are paying less, much less for drugs. Like in some cases, zero, because they can't even get the drugs.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot

lol. dear right wingers, we are referring to a public office not a private office. xoxo

Democrats are to dumb and brainwashed to see that this tax return BS is just the new chum Democrats are feeding the drones who follow them. They ran out of the russian chum.

lol. only the clueless and Causeless right wing believes that.

we merely need, follow the Capital under Any form of Capitalism; especially when foreign interference is suspected.

When Democrats say stupid things like foreign interference, they mean Facebook ads posted on the world wide web, that they want censored... like what china does.

Then they turn around and bribe foreign nationals to come and go unchecked and unregulated at will, with healthcare and welfare paid for by Americans, enable them to vote, then whine about foreign interference.

Don't take Democrats seriously or you will look just as retarded.

 

[pknopp]

See, what you don’t get is, 1st world countries in Europe have great socialist healthcare systems and there’s no critical shortage of doctors. You act as though our system is the best and when really it is the worst among developed nations. And I’ll tell you why it is worst and the most expensive: it’s a ridiculous for-profit system. People pay for prescription drugs at sky rocket rates. The same drugs in other countries cost a fraction of the same price. That shit is deliberate. Lobbyists made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

I don’t understand what point you’re making here. Regardless of the limitations at the time, rich people paid more in effective taxes and the middle class thrived.

I was not alive in the 50's, I was born in 1960, and let me tell you, nobody was thriving back then.

There is no critical shortage of doctors in socialized healthcare? Why don't you visit one country north where people wait forever to have serious medical issues addressed?

Being a truck driver in Cleveland, I often rub elbows with Canadian drivers. While waiting to get loaded or unloaded, we often talk.

I try to bring up the healthcare situation here and there. The younger drivers tell me they love their system. The older drivers tell me to keep what we have, or we will be sorry if in any way duplicate their system.

Show me one country where you think the healthcare system is perfect, and I'll provide several articles saying it's not so, because every country in the world has healthcare issues including the US. Ours may be different in the way of problems, but don't kid yourself thinking they don't have problems as well.

So you want government to control prescription prices? Great idea.

Hillary's Vaccine Shortage

Price controls are proven to be a really bad idea. We have a long history of price control policies going back to the 1930s. Every one of them ended in disaster. The fact that people still propose price controls demonstrates a horrible failure of our education system and a general ignorance of basic economics.

Only competition and efforts to increase the supply can control prices. Government regulation is a big log jam on supply.

.

What people don't understand is we are the innovator of many drugs in 70'sthe world. But it's a tedious task as well.

It takes anywhere form 5 to 10 years for a new drug to hit the American market thanks to the FDA and trial lawyers. When a company creates a new drug, it has to undergo all kinds of government testing. It's also hundreds of thousands pieces of paperwork that goes along with it.

But after (let's say) you spent the hundreds of millions of dollars for all this government testing. You invested 7 years of combatting red tape, and now the FDA simply says "No thanks, we will not approve it!" What do you do?

What you do is increase the price of the drugs you already have on the market. That's the problem.

But oh! other countries pay less for drugs than we do!!!! This is true, but other countries also never had to do the testing that our companies have to. So if the drug makes it to our market, they can charge much cheaper prices in other countries where the cost to market the drug is almost nothing because we paid for all the mandated research.

Then there is the liability issue no other country has. Somebody here dies because of a drug. The family can sue them right out of business. So the manufacture of the drugs needs to include a liability cost because somebody somewhere in the US is going to sue them, and we have to pay for that as well.

US citizens pay so the rest of the world can have cheap drugs? That's your preferred method?

The drugs are cheap in other countries because they have universal healthcare and their government REFUSES to pay the outrageous prices.

We don't have those same government protections because our system is based on profit. Billions and billions of our healthcare dollars do not go to healthcare. They go to insurance company and private healthcare profits. We even have to give up our access to the United States court system in order to receive treatment in many cases through forced arbitration agreements.

We fall further and further behind the rest of the first world.

US citizens pay so the rest of the world can have cheap drugs? That's your preferred method?

I don't think you are quite understanding what he is saying.

The Cost Of Developing Drugs Is Insane. That Paper That Says Otherwise Is Insanely Bad

For years, the pharmaceutical industry has relied on estimates from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, the most recent of which that puts the cost of bringing a medicine from invention to pharmacy shelves at $2.7 billion.​

Here is the point that you are missing.

What Ray is pointing out, is not that this is the "preferred method", but that this is the reality of the drug market.

Someone has to pay the bill.

A drug company easily spends BILLIONS of dollars developing a drug.

How are you going to earn back that $2.7 Billion you spent making that drug, selling it for $100 a bottle? Well you wouldn't.

So what would happen? The entire industry would go bankrupt can close.

If you spend $2.7 Billion, you have to earn back $2.7, plus a profit. If you don't make a profit, you close and go bankrupt too.

So someone has to pay the bill.

If no one pays the bill, the company goes broke and closes. Then you don't have to worry about paying a high price for medication, because there will not be any medication for you to buy.

So back to the point being made here.....

The reason why these companies can afford to charge France a lower price, is because the US is paying the bill.

Let me put it another way...

Say you are running a flower shop. It costs you $500,000 dollars to open the shop, but the cost of an individual bouquet of flowers is just $5. So you could sell them for just $10, and make a profit, but you would never earn back that half-million dollars you spent. You would be better off selling the shop, and getting your half-million back.

So you sell the flowers for $30 each. Now you are making a healthy enough profit, you can earn back that half million, and make a profit on that half million investment.

Then one day, a particular customer comes to you, and says "We're not paying $30 for each one. We'll pay you $10."

You think about it, you have a ton of customers paying the $30 each. Only this one wants to pay $10. Since you have enough paying the full price, you are going to make your money back. So the only question is, do you sell to this one customer and get a low-profit, or don't sell and make no profit?

So you agree, that this one customer can pay only $10 each, only because you have enough customers paying the full price, to make back the half million you invested.

That situation is what is happening in the drug industry right now.

The companies are spending billions of dollars to make these drugs. They can only afford to do that because they can earn back that money in the US market.

They are charging a lower price to some countries throughout Europe, because they can afford to do so, because they are making back the money on the investment here in the US.

This is why when the Massachusetts tried to cap medication prices under Romney Care, the companies openly said they would simply stop selling in the MA market.

They simply can't do that. If they lower the price on drugs in the US market, then they'll go bankrupt. You can't spend $2.7 Billion to make a drug, and then sell it for $30.

Again... Someone has to pay the bill. There is no free lunch.

And by the way, this is one of the problems I have with people who talk about how great the health care is in Europe. Many new drugs, are simply not available there. Newer drugs that have been on the US market for several years, are still not available in Europe... specifically because the governments of Europe refuse to pay the price for those drugs.

Then you say that Europeans are happier with their health care. Yeah, when you don't even know that a medication that can help you exists, it's easy to think you are getting good care. I was reading a blog by a guy who married a German woman, and moved to Germany. He was talking about how he would go to the doctor, and ask about a medication that was common in the US, and the Doctor would tell him no such medication exists.

Yeah, they are paying less, much less for drugs. Like in some cases, zero, because they can't even get the drugs.

"I was reading a blog" is not a valid argument .

 

[Flopper]

How can it be unconstitutional for the state to require tax returns for gubernatorial and presidential candidates in a state primary?

Because Pre-Existing Federal Law Says
Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS ONLY
California Doesn't Have Standing To Even ASK To Examine Them
Let Alone Standing To Enact Their Impotent Little Law

Nor Does California, New York
Or Any Other State Have Standing
To Remove The Republican Party Nominee
From ANY State Ballot For ANY Reason
Which Is What This Boils Down To

And Why The Republican Nominee For President (TRUMP)
Will Be On The Ballot Of ALL 50 STATES
And All The Hoping, And Wishing, And Praying
Won't Change A Thing

50 Pages Of MORE Proof
Democrats Have No Idea How Our Elections Work

The decision to make a candidate's tax returns public lies with the candidate not the state. Releasing of the tax returns is a condition of being placed on a state primary ballot. There is no state or federal requirement that a candidate's name appear on a primary ballot. It is the decision of candidate. As long as the candidate signs the release, it's legal.

 

[Andylusion]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

Politicians lie all the time. All of them. Why did Hillary lie about classified information on a private email server? Why did she lie about a obscure video on the internet, causing a spontaneous riot the killed a US diplomat?

I'll take Trump changing his mind on releasing a tax return, over bold faced lies about national security and the murdering of a diplomat, any day.

You are talking about Trump changing his mind on a tax return, over bold faced lies about very important issues, to... I don't want to release my tax return now.

That's not even really a lie. I wager at the time he said he would release his tax return, and then after realized the Democraps would use it as a political football, and decided not to.

Big deal. If you can prove wrong doing, then do so. Until then, people can change their minds on things. You have never said you would do X, and then later changed your mind? Why is that ok for you, but not Trump? Or do you expect me to believe you have never changed your mind on anything in your life?

 

[Siete]

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

Politicians lie all the time. All of them. Why did Hillary lie about classified information on a private email server? Why did she lie about a obscure video on the internet, causing a spontaneous riot the killed a US diplomat?

I'll take Trump changing his mind on releasing a tax return, over bold faced lies about national security and the murdering of a diplomat, any day.

You are talking about Trump changing his mind on a tax return, over bold faced lies about very important issues, to... I don't want to release my tax return now.

That's not even really a lie. I wager at the time he said he would release his tax return, and then after realized the Democraps would use it as a political football, and decided not to.

Big deal. If you can prove wrong doing, then do so. Until then, people can change their minds on things. You have never said you would do X, and then later changed your mind? Why is that ok for you, but not Trump? Or do you expect me to believe you have never changed your mind on anything in your life?

everything Trump "SAID" is pure horseshit ..

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[pknopp]

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

Politicians lie all the time. All of them. Why did Hillary lie about classified information on a private email server? Why did she lie about a obscure video on the internet, causing a spontaneous riot the killed a US diplomat?

I refused to vote for her because she did lie all the time. Again, I supported Sanders. Can you show where he lies "all the time"?

I'll take Trump changing his mind on releasing a tax return, over bold faced lies about national security and the murdering of a diplomat, any day.

He lied. The reason he had no problem doing so is he knew that there would be plenty of those like yourself that would cover for them. That's why so many have no problem lying.

You are talking about Trump changing his mind on a tax return, over bold faced lies about very important issues, to... I don't want to release my tax return now.

No I am not. You are trying to spin it that way. Trump has lied about all kinds of things also. I consider health care a very important aspect also. I'm still waiting for the great plan he had that we all were going to love. I'm still waiting on Mexico paying for the wall.

That's not even really a lie. I wager at the time he said he would release his tax return, and then after realized the Democraps would use it as a political football, and decided not to.

Big deal. If you can prove wrong doing, then do so. Until then, people can change their minds on things. You have never said you would do X, and then later changed your mind? Why is that ok for you, but not Trump? Or do you expect me to believe you have never changed your mind on anything in your life?

Trump lies constantly. Even when it is shown to him that he said something he claims he never said he lies about it. Trump is very much like Hillary. They will lie even when the truth is a better answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

Politicians lie all the time. All of them. Why did Hillary lie about classified information on a private email server? Why did she lie about a obscure video on the internet, causing a spontaneous riot the killed a US diplomat?

I'll take Trump changing his mind on releasing a tax return, over bold faced lies about national security and the murdering of a diplomat, any day.

You are talking about Trump changing his mind on a tax return, over bold faced lies about very important issues, to... I don't want to release my tax return now.

That's not even really a lie. I wager at the time he said he would release his tax return, and then after realized the Democraps would use it as a political football, and decided not to.

Big deal. If you can prove wrong doing, then do so. Until then, people can change their minds on things. You have never said you would do X, and then later changed your mind? Why is that ok for you, but not Trump? Or do you expect me to believe you have never changed your mind on anything in your life?

You see, only Republicans lie. Democrats simply "mis-spoke."

These leftists want to focus on Trump lying, but as I challenged before, find me one politician that never lied.

Besides, it's not how many lies that count, it's what they are lying about that's much more important.

I'll take two thousand likes like tax returns over one huge lie that cost us over a trillion dollars, cost millions to lose their employer sponsored healthcare, and cost Americans billions every year in penalties.

 

[pknopp]

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

Politicians lie all the time. All of them. Why did Hillary lie about classified information on a private email server? Why did she lie about a obscure video on the internet, causing a spontaneous riot the killed a US diplomat?

I'll take Trump changing his mind on releasing a tax return, over bold faced lies about national security and the murdering of a diplomat, any day.

You are talking about Trump changing his mind on a tax return, over bold faced lies about very important issues, to... I don't want to release my tax return now.

That's not even really a lie. I wager at the time he said he would release his tax return, and then after realized the Democraps would use it as a political football, and decided not to.

Big deal. If you can prove wrong doing, then do so. Until then, people can change their minds on things. You have never said you would do X, and then later changed your mind? Why is that ok for you, but not Trump? Or do you expect me to believe you have never changed your mind on anything in your life?

You see, only Republicans lie. Democrats simply "mis-spoke."

Why lie? I said the opposite. I don't try and cover the lies that Hillary and Obama told.

These leftists want to focus on Trump lying, but as I challenged before, find me one politician that never lied.

Now you set an impossible bar. Yes, Sanders probably told his parents a lie.

Besides, it's not how many lies that count, it's what they are lying about that's much more important.

Health care and immigration is important.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Tax returns contain important information about a candidate that voters need to know, particularly in today's world of false news, twitter attacks, and an Internet which amplifies all false claims.

A candidate’s tax returns include information about what a candidate owns, which can let voters know of possible conflicts of interest and whether there are entanglements with foreign businesses and foreign governments. They reveal whether a candidate owes money and to whom.

So tell us why any voter would need to know these things. We don't. What we need to know is outlined in the US Constitution. That's why they wrote the requirements. Also, tell me how many tax returns that you filed that stated what you own. The closest you'd come is a house or more, and that's only if you have a mortgage and wrote off the interest.

Entanglements with foreign governments or businesses? Didi you read up on Joe Biden and his crooked son the last six months? Tell me we will get to know all about that in his tax returns.

The problem here is if a Republican were low enough to create similar requirements such as revealing college transcripts or original birth certificates before Hussein ran, you on the left would have been rioting. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Because he said he would. (Release his taxes)

Apparently he changed his mind.

His tax returns aren't your business.

Feel free to post your tax returns in your reply.

No, he lied. I don't care about his tax returns. I've stated that repeatedly. I care about a president honoring his word.

Then you hated obuthole, right?

 

[pknopp]

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Tax returns contain important information about a candidate that voters need to know, particularly in today's world of false news, twitter attacks, and an Internet which amplifies all false claims.

A candidate’s tax returns include information about what a candidate owns, which can let voters know of possible conflicts of interest and whether there are entanglements with foreign businesses and foreign governments. They reveal whether a candidate owes money and to whom.

So tell us why any voter would need to know these things. We don't. What we need to know is outlined in the US Constitution. That's why they wrote the requirements. Also, tell me how many tax returns that you filed that stated what you own. The closest you'd come is a house or more, and that's only if you have a mortgage and wrote off the interest.

Entanglements with foreign governments or businesses? Didi you read up on Joe Biden and his crooked son the last six months? Tell me we will get to know all about that in his tax returns.

The problem here is if a Republican were low enough to create similar requirements such as revealing college transcripts or original birth certificates before Hussein ran, you on the left would have been rioting. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

I think Obama was a jerk for not simply releasing his birth certificate from the beginning but we can note, Trump made a really big deal over his birth certificate so one could note that turn about is fair play.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I just explained why hospitals would close and doctors would quit. No business can operate at a loss or even break even for that matter. Do you think an American wants to spend 8 years of their life racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to become a physician only to work until 50 years old before it's paid off?

There is only one way to approach the healthcare problem, and that is analyze why it's so expensive in the first place. I guarantee you government is mostly responsible for that. After we greatly reduce the cost for healthcare, then let's figure out a way to pay for it. But this approach of paying for something that's out of control cost-wise is pure stupidity. That's why Commie Care is such a failure.

Now as to the tax rate. Yes, people paid higher taxes, but there were not many places left to go. Overseas travel was dangerous and expensive. Communications were antiquated and long distance was expensive, unreliable and the sound quality was miserable.

Today a business owner can pack up and move out of the country with no problem. He can keep track of his investments up to the minute on his or her cell phone. He can have corporate meetings on Skype or other means of virtual gatherings. With radar and satellites, overseas travel has never been safer.

See, what you don’t get is, 1st world countries in Europe have great socialist healthcare systems and there’s no critical shortage of doctors. You act as though our system is the best and when really it is the worst among developed nations. And I’ll tell you why it is worst and the most expensive: it’s a ridiculous for-profit system. People pay for prescription drugs at sky rocket rates. The same drugs in other countries cost a fraction of the same price. That shit is deliberate. Lobbyists made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

I don’t understand what point you’re making here. Regardless of the limitations at the time, rich people paid more in effective taxes and the middle class thrived.

I was not alive in the 50's, I was born in 1960, and let me tell you, nobody was thriving back then.

There is no critical shortage of doctors in socialized healthcare? Why don't you visit one country north where people wait forever to have serious medical issues addressed?

Being a truck driver in Cleveland, I often rub elbows with Canadian drivers. While waiting to get loaded or unloaded, we often talk.

I try to bring up the healthcare situation here and there. The younger drivers tell me they love their system. The older drivers tell me to keep what we have, or we will be sorry if in any way duplicate their system.

Show me one country where you think the healthcare system is perfect, and I'll provide several articles saying it's not so, because every country in the world has healthcare issues including the US. Ours may be different in the way of problems, but don't kid yourself thinking they don't have problems as well.

So you want government to control prescription prices? Great idea.

Hillary's Vaccine Shortage

Price controls are proven to be a really bad idea. We have a long history of price control policies going back to the 1930s. Every one of them ended in disaster. The fact that people still propose price controls demonstrates a horrible failure of our education system and a general ignorance of basic economics.

Only competition and efforts to increase the supply can control prices. Government regulation is a big log jam on supply.

.

What people don't understand is we are the innovator of many drugs in the world. But it's a tedious task as well.

It takes anywhere form 5 to 10 years for a new drug to hit the American market thanks to the FDA and trial lawyers. When a company creates a new drug, it has to undergo all kinds of government testing. It's also hundreds of thousands pieces of paperwork that goes along with it.

But after (let's say) you spent the hundreds of millions of dollars for all this government testing. You invested 7 years of combatting red tape, and now the FDA simply says "No thanks, we will not approve it!" What do you do?

What you do is increase the price of the drugs you already have on the market. That's the problem.

But oh! other countries pay less for drugs than we do!!!! This is true, but other countries also never had to do the testing that our companies have to. So if the drug makes it to our market, they can charge much cheaper prices in other countries where the cost to market the drug is almost nothing because we paid for all the mandated research.

Then there is the liability issue no other country has. Somebody here dies because of a drug. The family can sue them right out of business. So the manufacture of the drugs needs to include a liability cost because somebody somewhere in the US is going to sue them, and we have to pay for that as well.

You make a very good point. Other nations are getting a free ride when it comes to much of the research because most of the developmental research cost is paid by the drug companies and thus consumers.

In most advanced nations, drugs are either bid by government or some form of price controls are use to hold prices down, leaving the US and a few other countries funding most of the research.

If the US did as these other countries do, then the drug companies would be forced to raise their prices abroad forcing other nations to bear their share of the cost.

Or they would simply not sell their products to the US market.

Hillary's Vaccine Shortage

 

[pknopp]

Because he said he would. (Release his taxes)

Apparently he changed his mind.

His tax returns aren't your business.

Feel free to post your tax returns in your reply.

No, he lied. I don't care about his tax returns. I've stated that repeatedly. I care about a president honoring his word.

Then you hated obuthole, right?

I'd be happy to answer if you ask in an adult manner.