2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat is the difference between Hillary's transcripts and Bernie's IRS taxes?
The transcripts involve the shaping of U.S. policy, affecting everyone in the country who pays taxes and invests.
Bernie's tax returns do not.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Prevaricate, deflect, obfuscate, hurl false equivalencies. And that is being kind and giving them credit for knowing exactly what they are doing.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Those thread were so scary, I sent them to the Secret Service out of fear someone was planning to do something to the plane.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Speech transcripts are just opinions, and opinions often change.
What you do is more important that what you say.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.
You are looking for dirt in distilled water, good luck with that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And his Senate disclosures are not "full" at all--they're a mishmash of bullshit, and, it turns out, they're INCOMPLETE.
You want to die on the "Senate Disclosure" hill? Go right ahead!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/1/1509132/-Why-Hasn-t-Bernie-Sanders-Released-His-Tax-Returns
MADem
(135,425 posts)I wouldn't be surprised if Jane cut a few corners, that the IRS wouldn't notice, but the 4th Estate would.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)citizens file their private utterances with the authorities, but they DO require that citizens file and pay taxes. I'll let you google that for yourself, since you're putting yourself out as an expert on that score.
Bernie and Jane paid 13.4 percent in taxes last year--that's less than I paid, and I make a helluva lot less than they do.
When Mister Fight The Power is a one percenter in terms of his income, but he is paying less in taxes, as a percentage of his income, than a fast food worker, people have every right to say "WTF?"
oasis
(49,150 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)afford to pay to heat federal buildings, never mind free college for everyone!
oasis
(49,150 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)on point !!
hueymahl
(2,414 posts)"Mister Fight The Power is a one percenter"
$156k in AGI is not top 1%, not even close. In 2013, they would have needed $428,712, or a little less than 300% more than they currently make. It likely is more now. http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T054-C000-S001-your-rank-as-a-taxpayer.html
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply ignorant on this point and not trying to be deceptive.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You try so hard with the snark!
hueymahl
(2,414 posts)Why do you think it is? Your question has a point. No need to be demure.
Oh, and I noticed you just moved the goalposts. Before, it was about his income taxes. Now that I have exploded that line of attack, it is about his wife's assets.
And believe me, I am not trying to be snarky. I truly was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are not ignorant. Which means you are purposefully trying to be deceptive.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I would not be surprised if he quits the race before he ever releases his tax returns.
I also think, if he decides to run for the Senate again in 18, that his opponent(S) will make Such A Stink about his taxes that we'll hear it all the way from the remotest corners of the Northeast Kingdom.
The TAXES and the WIFE's ASSETS are all of a piece, you know. "Exploded that line of attack?" You overstate your talents.
One thing you have to say about the Clinton finances, they are ENTIRELY transparent about them.
You can't say the same about the Sanders'. They are secretive and evasive. And it's OBVIOUS.
And who in hell is being "demure?" Never mind "deceptive?" You apparently love to toss shit when you've got nothing--and that ugly, accusatory post is all on you. YOU WERE trying to be snarky--and rude, and insulting. If I cared what you thought (and I don't) your silly little cheap shots would matter--but I don't, so they don't.
smh. Release those TAXES, Bernie!!! Let's see those schedules!
Next time, try conversing without personal insult and obvious bitterness, and maybe someone will take you seriously. You're coming off like a very disappointed and childish pouter when you start flinging shit at people because you don't like their opinions.
207. Estate planning?
View profile
Why do you think it is? Your question has a point. No need to be demure.
Oh, and I noticed you just moved the goalposts. Before, it was about his income taxes. Now that I have exploded that line of attack, it is about his wife's assets.
And believe me, I am not trying to be snarky. I truly was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly you are not ignorant. Which means you are purposefully trying to be deceptive.
hueymahl
(2,414 posts)Talk about name calling! That is all you appear capable of. But, I don't alert, so I guess I will just ignore you.
What is transparent is this is the latest Clintonian attack her supporters are rallying around. Good luck with that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)210. You are a piece of work
View profile
Talk about name calling! That is all you appear capable of. But, I don't alert, so I guess I will just ignore you.
What is transparent is this is the latest Clintonian attack her supporters are rallying around. Good luck with that.
You can "name call" public figures all the live long day. And questioning their lack of transparency isn't "name calling." Not everyone "Feels the Bern." GET USED TO IT. But calling DUers a "piece of work?" That's against the TOS in normal times. Maybe you should read the TOS here instead of running around calling people names. That's some friendly advice for you, for the short time you'll be here. I've a feeling you'll find this place entirely uninteresting once the primaries are over.
hueymahl
(2,414 posts)And threatening. And acting like a bully.
I've been here quite a while, and I will be here when the silly season is over. And I will vote for the democratic nominee. Despite both our candidates flaws, they are light-years better than the alternative.
Just because I don't obsess over this site and have over a 100K posts (which is a little insane, frankly), is no reason to attack me or anyone else. But many people resort to ad hominem attacks when reasoned arguments fail.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You started out by calling me deceitful, and then it got worse. Every post is a personal insult. Now you're calling me INSANE.
All I'm doing is pointing out your rude, abusive behavior.
Don't like it?
Stop behaving in a way that does not conform to the TOS.
For someone who claims to not "obsess" over this site, you're sure coming at me with both barrels. Over and over and over again. You just can't stop, can you?
Why is that, I wonder?
Hmmmmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
If you want to know about "angry" maybe you need to look a little closer to home....
hueymahl
(2,414 posts)I'm tired of being insulted.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)But I won't be seeing that one again any time soon. I down have a screen for that show to be projected on anymore.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Into something very unpleasant, and abrasive, that resorts to Rovian methods of attack, and David Brock Talking point parroting.
Until (if ever) you return to your old self, worthy of good discussion and input I am placing you on ignore. I will take you off after the primaries to see if you've gotten yourself together again, but until then, I won't even see your posts.
Goodbye for now, my one-time ally on many issues.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's "Rovian" about asking why a guy who makes over 200K a year only pays 13.4 percent of his salary in taxes?
What's "Rovian" about wondering why a guy EXEMPTS over a quarter of his income in a single year?
What's "Rovian" about wondering why this "straight shooter" with "nothing to hide" has not released ANY TAX RETURNS? ANY? And no--summaries do NOT count.
This guy is supposed to be transparent--until he releases ten years of returns, like a transparent public official should, he's a BSer.
And it ain't about MEEEEEEEEEEE. Your comments are both ugly and embarrassing to you. My only crime is that I don't think Berrrrrrrnie is The Way and The Light. I think he's a bullshitter who trods the path of Do as I Say, Not as I Do.
Shame on YOU.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)JudyM
(29,122 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)After all he's also a US Senator, so according to you we already know everything we need to about his finances and he shouldn't bother releasing tax returns. Not suggesting you support Cruz or anything like that, I just want a straight yes or no answer on whether you'd be happy with him offering such a justification for not releasing them.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I will not respond to falsehoods, or conflated bullshit rumors (or more likely in this case a Brock produced false meme smear tactic)
I will only answer true statements, or discuss issues and their differences on them.
If you produce evidence to support your claim he refuses to release them (he in fact has said the opposite), then I will respond accordingly, until then, I realize the entire Clinton campaign relies on smears and seldom, very seldom are her issues discussed by her people.
I therefore understand your need to use smears as discussion, but I prefer issues and I find Sanders to be the far superior candidate on the issues.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Would you be OK with Senator Ted Cruz offering the same justification that you offered in post #13?
Sanders has not released all his tax returns so far. Contrary to what you asserted, I made no predictions about whether he will do so in the future, and I have never used the phrase 'will not release his tax returns", which you dishonestly attributed to me in the title of your message. I don't know whether he will do so or not and have not formed any opinion on what his reasons for not doing so already might be. You lied by pretending I said that.
Now yes or no, are you OK with Ted Cruz using the same reasoning that you did in post #13 as a justification not to release tax returns?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)re-read my post to see why (I'll give you a hint, my wife is no longer with us, but I had never beaten her).
As far as Cruz, he is off topic, but I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, but your trying to equate Cruz with Sanders as you do, is really quite telling.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)You said in post #13 that you think Sanders' senate financial disclosures are sufficient. I am asking if you think the same is true for Ted Cruz, since he is also a US senator. Specifically, you wrote:
There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.
I am simply asking if you think the same standard should apply to Ted Cruz or not.
My question does not contain any implicit logical fallacies of the kind you are trying to distract people with. You are certainly going to great lengths to avoid answering a simple question.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)"You said in post #13 that you think Sanders' senate financial disclosures are sufficient." the words you threw in my mouth.
What I actually said
I have also stated that he has not refused to release his returns as you so "artfully smeared"
and he will release them and soon, which will mean you will have to await the next email with the fresh smear after this one is proven wrong.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)...because I anticipated that you would make this sort of complaint. Everyone else can look at my last post and see that I quoted your words from post #13 verbatim so that there would be no ambiguity. It is dishonest of you to pretend I did otherwise. Nor have I made any allegation, ever, anywhere, that Sanders has refused to release his returns in the future, another blatant lie on your part. You certainly like to project a lot, since it is actually you who is falsely putting words in my mouth when I am taking the trouble to represent your statements accurately.
Now yet again, as you said in post #13:
There is full disclosure of all his finances in the Senate record, it is a requirement and open to the public already, if there were any "laws broken", I am sure they would have caught it.
Do you think the same standard should apply to Senator Ted Cruz, yes or no?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)NOW Mr Brock,
Do I think all candidates should disclose their tax returns as well as tax havens and huge profits made from secret speeches to the banking elite they are running to regulate? Yes on all that as well.
I know he will release his taxes so this non issue your employers have you carrying the water on will soon evaporate.
Do you agree YES OR NO with my above yes or no question in full above, since we are conflating one thing with another as you have been trying to do and appear to believe is a normal thing?
MADem
(135,425 posts)LOL!
He's SPECIAL....and tweeting birds love him....so what if he only paid THIRTEEN percent of his income in taxes....He's BERRRRRRNIE!!!!!!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)an more often in a foul mood than not, unlike the other poster, you will not get un-ignored after the primary because you have never been a decent poster here from what I've read.
Goodbye, now invisible one!
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)vacillation.
A state of a perpetual indecision. Not a good trait for a leader to posses IMHO.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)even when it is not politically expedient to do so, especially so in such a case.
vacillation in a leader is an extremely bad trait.
A point illustrated well by Shakespeare
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... details or responses to questions when asked about details.
I'm glad we're having a long primary, Clinton seems to be the better choice overall
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)His specifics and policy goals as they were misrepresented in a tabloid recently.
Go to his website, there are many specifics there if you wish to learn his policies and specifics.
Hearing a bias interpretation of his policies from Clinton or a Clinton PAC source run by David Brock (Correct the Record, Blue Nation Review etc) or from the Daily Beast (where Chelsea Clinton was just given a leadership role on the board), let alone a tabloid style rag run by Clinton heavy donor and neocon Mortimer Zuckerman, You will get what his opponent in the election has paid for.
Judging by your comments I see that is where you get all or most of your information Regarding Bernie sanders policy positions and it is sad because campaigns want to win and learning about a candidate from his opponent will not give you any information that is unbiased or in favor of it's competing candidate.
To be frank with you I fear you have already drunk the David Brock kool-aid, served just as effectively as it was served to those needed to slut shame and victim blame Anita Hill for the purposes of getting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Deprogramming such expert spin is beyond my ability as I am not qualified to deprogram anyone.
It is important for me to tell you the truth anyway, and that is that learning about Sanders' positions from the Clinton campaign and it's PACs or surrogates, is akin to learning about Clinton's policies from a Sanders paid PAC if he had one, would you trust her positions based on such a source as that?
As I said, I think you are no longer objective and I doubt a mile long sub thread would change anything other that which slogans you have been taught to memorize and repeat without even your realizing you were taught to do so, so I chose to leave the conversation with you here, ending it, but in the hopes that perhaps some of what I have written has gotten through.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... flexible ... like the rest
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)special interest run campaign, only the expensive kool-aid, put out by specialists in marketing and spin rather than policy and truth. matter to a consumer treated and conditioned mind.
I tried, but all I received for my efforts was one more ignore on my list rather than an intelligent conversation.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It sounds like you assume the worst about the transcripts, a legitimate assumption.
MADem
(135,425 posts)But I think those Sanders tax returns are a gold mine.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It looks bad and she could clear it up if she wanted to. It fits neatly with the package.
I don't expect her to release the transcripts, ever, for various reasons. Which makes it an even better issue to hammer.
I wish Bernie would just release his returns. If there is anything in there, we should know. I'm honestly don't worry about it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)At least you're honest.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And it is a good issue. It had you suggest that she may have said something that she has changed her position or opinion on.
We all know there is next to no chance that Bernie can pull this off. It is so close to no chance that the only thing keeping from it being "no chance" is that he hasn't dropped out. I support him and that minuscule chance until one candidate concedes.
Do you REALLY believe the there is something in Bernie's tax returns that broke the law?
REALLY??
Be serious now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Mom's condo....?"
Mom has been dead for over ten years. Did they rent it and not mention it? What was up with Mom's condo for ten years after Mom died?
I think Jane's not too good at "math."
Do you have any idea how often properties like this go unattended for 10 or more years?
I literally JUST lost a bidding war over a property like this in Santa Monica.
The parent had died sometime in the early 2000s. The son inherited the property but didn't live in the area. Thought about remodeling it, never got around to it and wound up selling it "as is". That property sat vacant for likely close to 15 years. None of the appliances worked and it needed many renovations.
We bid 1,050,000 as our top bid and would have had to fiance 60% of it. Someone out bid us with a full cash offer for 1,065,000. The owner didn't even want to come back to us, b/c they wanted the cash offer over any financing (which can always fall through). They renovated the place and sold is 4 months later for 1.4 million. I kick myself for not going to a friend of mine who had the cash, but those are the breaks.
However, it is hardly odd for "Mom's condo" to go completely empty for 10 years.
So please.. bring something REAL to the conversation.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Speaking of bringing something REAL to the conversation.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Its a nonsense issue.
"Mom's condo".
Please.
MADem
(135,425 posts)about her taxes....
Please.
basselope
(2,565 posts)"sweating like a confidence man".
So, let me get this straight.. in 30+ years of often highly contested elections you believe that they are doing something shady on their taxes and NO ONE noticed until now?
And whatever this is... (despite the fact that numbers all add up).. whatever this thing is.. its some type of bombshell that will blow the Sanders campaign apart.
And this revolves around "Mom's condo"??
Here's the funniest thing. Most people look at the other candidates (who all have far more money and likely accountants who handle their taxes) and say "well.. they released theirs".. yeah, they called their accountant and asked for a copy and released it.
When you do your own taxes, as I used to do from 1995-2005.. I wouldn't have been able to find ANYTHING. I did them, mailed em in and stuck a copy somewhere. Where? I don't know.. in a box, in a drawer. They existed. When we recently moved, i came across some of them and laughed. They went into a bag to be shredded.
When I bought my condo in 2006, I HAD TO do a stated income loan mainly because I couldn't FIND my tax returns from 2004 and earlier and the amount of time it gets to get copies from the IRS would have surpassed my allotted time to get a loan.
Anyone who does their own taxes and doesn't have MUCH to declare knows this.. taxes only become something important to keep when they become complicated. Given what they showed in 2014, their taxes aren't complicated. Very simple actually.
So please... sell your wild conspiracy theories elsewhere.
MADem
(135,425 posts)years--the one where all the Senate PACS chipped in to help him ten years ago. HILLPAC gave him a couple of donations, if you'll recall.
Sanders has ESCAPED electoral scrutiny because his voting base is smaller than that of the city of Boston.
Keep telling yourself that... b/c the gop never went after the socialist.
Sorry to burst your hope bubble... but their aint nothing there
MADem
(135,425 posts)If they ever went after Sanders, Swiftboating and Willy Horton would look like a walk in the park.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Never found them that effective, unless you have a weak candidate like Clinton who is so easy to attack.
Sorry, not young.
Although I think by Clinton standards anyone under 60 is "Young", so I guess then, yes, I am young.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It doesn't really matter what YOU find effective--it's what the ELECTORATE finds effective.
Old attacks? They're the same as no attacks. But with Sanders, there's something brand new around the corner every day.
Kerry lost because he voted for the Iraq War and didn't have support of the progressives. I certainly didn't vote for him. What self respecting progressive would have voted for Kerry???
Dukakis didn't lose to "attack ads". We were coming off the Reagan revolution and what was PERCEIVED by many to be great economic times.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have no idea what you do for a living, but I think we can cross "political science professor" off the list.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Or maybe they didn't vote.
The point is the democrats fielded their weakest candidate possible b/c he couldn't combat bush on the issue bush was the weakest on.. the Iraq War.
So you ended up with an election between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Listen to yourself!
Feel the MATH!
basselope
(2,565 posts)The ones you NEED (but cannot get) make up enough of % of the electorate to cause democrats to lose swing states.
This is why Clinton will never be president.
She can't win the swing states b/c the base won't turn out for her. Couple that with voter suppression tactics and she has no chance in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Arizona or even Wisconsin for that matter.
The only way to overcome this is MASSIVE voter turnout.. but she can't inspire that.
beedle
(1,235 posts)and if there were anything illegal about Bernie's it's up to the IRS to determine that ... and unless you have something that shows the IRS found illegality in Bernie's tax returns, then you are just blowing smoke out your 'Hillary'.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because if the media does find a discrepancy, and they report it, the IRS will look into it.
But the IRS already has those Schedule A's ... I'm sure the 'scandal' of not releasing them to the public is just as good at getting the IRS to review them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She's probably got a slew of accountants amending the hell out of the last ten years of returns...!
beedle
(1,235 posts)Until the email leaks "reminded" them that they must have "somehow forgotten" them!?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511718829
MADem
(135,425 posts)and changing the subject-it is obvious that you are trying to shift the focus away from the tax return problem.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)and it ain't looking good for Her Majesty
MADem
(135,425 posts)Grrrr! Grrrrrrr!!!
JudyM
(29,122 posts)us to believe you care about the law? She doesn't even comply with the spirit of the law, much less the letter of it.
elleng
(130,126 posts)and the older ones when she can get home to get them from their files.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm sure they could afford it--it's less than two twenty seven dollar donations per return.
He needs to release the past ten years, at least--since he got to the Senate.
elleng
(130,126 posts)they have nothing better to do with their money at the moment.
and they provided them @ each election time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-04-11/with-all-due-respect-04-11-16
MADem
(135,425 posts)they're in GREAT shape, financially.
You think "Bernie and Jane" are donating to this campaign? GET REAL!
They're living off those little people donations!
elleng
(130,126 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)they have nothing better to do with their money at the moment.
But guess what?
They could write those fees off as a business expense!
So what's your excuse NOW, that people who make over two hundred grand a year can't afford a few hundred dollars to get old tax returns out of the IRS? Hmmmm?
elleng
(130,126 posts)They are BUSY, in case you haven't noticed.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The excuse - making I've seen here, the twisting, the "Oh, well...." ...it is MIND-BOGGLING.
If Clinton was missing one page of a Schedule A you'd be shitting bricks and demanding her head. But Berrrnnnnnie hasn't released ANY returns -- not a single one, just a summary page that raises more questions than it answers -- and you "Awwww...." and "Pooor Busy BERRRRRNIE..." all over the place--it's absolutely craven. Shameless! You hold one candidate up to the highest standards, but let the one you favor get away with absolute murder.
If the shoe was on the other foot, you sure as fuck wouldn't be saying "Oh, poor Hillary....she's BUSY!"
The hypocrisy is so self-evident, you should be cringing.
elleng
(130,126 posts)I'm interested in her judgment, fyi.
MY candidate, fwiw, was MO'M.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm just sick to death of the hypocritical approach to this matter.
If Clinton did what Sanders IS doing, you'd be calling for her head.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)You love to stretch a point to impossibility, don't you?
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Mortgage, utilities and services.. You claimed they are saving expenses because they are living off the campaign. It was not subtle
MADem
(135,425 posts)eating off the campaign dime, you're saving a fortune there. If the campaign is paying for your laundry, you're not doing your own, and saving money there; if you're away from home, the heat is down low, so you're saving money there.
They ARE saving money by living off the campaign. Hell, Kucinich did that as a way of life--so did Al Sharpton. It wasn't a state secret.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)on ignore...
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)activities. If you do pay for it, you must report it 'in-kind' and those donations are included in the maximum amount.
So they must live off of it....they are not allowed to pay for it, only as much as a max contribution will allow under the guidelines.
"Living off the little people" you are ridiculous. Even if it WERE allowed, I'd rather he live off of us, do deals for us, INSTEAD OF CORPORATIONS AND WALL STREET.
WHAT PART OF THIS REPLY DON'T YOU GET?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He could pay his own way, if he wanted to.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)she'd have them by now.
She's got kids--send one of them to the house to fetch the documents.
She knows those returns are a HOT MESS, and that's why she is stalling.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That's what Bernie and Jane paid last year.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)never mind free college.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)to free college. He might be able to swing a flower arranging class, or maybe a short cosmetology course.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)for four years, doesn't it?
Doesn't it???
And if Uncle Sam is taking in so little from wealthy senators, they're certainly not going to make the cash needed to send everyone to school. Like I said, they'll be lucky to be able to afford flower arranging class.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Seeings how you did in your reply anyhow.
MADem
(135,425 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)She can get copies online anytime she wants. That excuse is just bullshit.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)FYI.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)have not released their tax returns 'because they had to get them from the IRS'. That's clearly not a valid excuse, since she has the returns at her fingertips at any time, day or night from Turbo Tax.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It's a good thing the Sanders don't own a dog. With them being away from home so much the poor thing might get hungry and be forced to eat the tax returns to stay alive.
Seriously, every politician in a presidential race (and many smaller races) is expected to release tax returns and this has been true for decades now. But you expect us to believe that this never occurred to Bernie or Jane Sanders and now that it's been pointed out to them they simply haven't had time to get home? At best this speaks to a complete lack of preparation on Sanders' part.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)about the transcripts.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Just like nobody but the Tea Party cares about Obama's college transcripts. You want to keep insisting that speech transcripts are just like tax returns, but they are not and everyone knows that, including you.
The inability of some people here to address a direct question is striking.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Bernie's piddling tax returns won't reveal anything that we don't already know......
"everyone knows that, including you"
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I have no idea what Clinton believes i her heart of hearts, and I have no reason to believe that she reveals her innermost self to bankers at Goldman Sachs. More likely she does what everyone else does, which is tell them what they want to hear - that they're an important part of the economy, that people in DC take their concerns seriously, that the future holds great opportunities, and that America is the greatest country in the world and New York is the greatest city in the world.
She is no more reading from the secret handbook of the Illuminati when she addresses bankers at GS than she is reading from the Communist Manifesto when she addresses an audience of union members or reading from the ultra-secret Homosexual Agenda if she addresses a group of LGBT activists. You have apparently convinced yourself that there is some shocking smoking gun to be found in the speech of a politician addressing a gathering of people in a major industry, based solely on the fact that you disapprove of the banking industry. That's your problem.
I don't expect to find any big smoking guns in Sanders tax returns, but I'm a bit curious about why he has delayed publishing them because it's become such a normal thing for candidates to do over the last 40 years, and Sanders would have known that from the beginning of his campaign. As a result, he looks amateurish and unprepared when he offers excuses like his wife's inability to get to the filing cabinet they're stored in. Let's hope that she didn't leave the gas on when she departed their home and that it's still standing whenever they finally make it back to Vermont, as apparently there's nobody they trust to drop by the house while they're away.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)You don't create a contract that states that there will be no video record, and no transcripts except for the one that she receives unless you are saying things that you don't want the public to hear. You don't create a private email system that allows you to delete any email that you like prior to a freedom of information request unless you are worried that a smoking gun might be created.
What I have a "problem" with is a candidate taking money hand over fist as personal income in the millions from every sector of Big Business for short speeches that she refuses to share with us. It has the appearance of corruption, and she compounds the problem with her evasiveness.
Bernie is probably the first major candidate in modern history to do his own taxes, and anyone who uses Turbo Tax does not have a very complicated tax return. By the way, it is April 12th, and Jane said that she would not be requesting an extension this year, so she should have the taxes done by the 15th, and she did ask "How many years would you like?"
So this should be resolved soon, and the Senator with the lowest net worth will have satisfied this "requirement"....
But, will Hillary release her transcripts?....Not in a million years.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Contracts like that are common when people are charging huge speaking fees, because the less available they are the higher the speaking fees they can charge. I have no problem with someone who is arguably the most famous women in the world getting paid more than I see in a year for a short speech. She wasn't speaking in her capacity as a public official at the time so as far as I am concerned that's her private business. The public doesn't own public figures except insofar as they are paid by the public dime. Same reason I really don't give a shit about sex scandals regardless of party affiliation.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Merely taking all of that money as income compromises her, and they are also funding her campaign and her superPACS.
They shoot money at her out of a fire hose in every conceivable way,
No one in history has been so brazen and so secretive. It is hard to think of anyone in modern history who is more compromised.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I reject your claim that merely taking money compromises her. Obviously we are not going to agree about this.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)...something is deeply lacking in your argument. Have a nice day.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)That is what she is saying...and you agree
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)suckers... err, supporters!
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I'm all ears for this explanation, since you claim to be so knowledgeable. What would I see?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)The leaks I've seen suggest that she told Goldman Sachs employees the sort of thing that they wanted to hear and that it was the sort of shallow audience-affirming pablum that invited speakers everywhere give to audiences - you're great, your industry is very important, America is the greatest country in the world and you play an important part in that, here's an insider story from my days as a Very Famous Person that you can use to amuse your friends at your next dinner party. Afterwards there are handshakes and photos with the Very Famous Person, who makes a show of being absolutely delighted to shake hands with complete strangers who s/he will in all likelihood never meet again.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure that when the Presidential candidates stop in Iowa every 4 years they don't actually give much of a shit about farming but they still tell everyone they meet that they're the salt o the earth and this This Is The Real America and that Iowa is the most important place in the country and that whatever town they happen to be in is the most important place in Iowa because the people there are the realest most American Americans. Just like they say the food they eat in the diners they visit is the most delicious food they've ever tasted even if it's warmed over hog swill.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)most damaging statements. There's no reason not too considering her donor base and connections.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I don't know where you were last night so until you fess up I'm going to assume you were out murdering people.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)You think every.single.fact needs to be presented and until then you can darw no conclusions whatsoever. But, your defense of HRC is its own conclusion. What is that based on ? She made millions speaking to banksters so it certainly right to want to know what was said. Do you think Mitt Romney wanted his 47% comment to get out? I don't, but it did and it hurt him. So what is Hillary trying to hide? I am sure it will most likley confirm many things people are suspecting... that she's the rich and powerfuls' gal, not ours (the people)!!!
BTW, if I wasn't around to respond to you on your time-frame, I must mention that I do have other things to do besides point out the obvious to the clueless.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Yes, do like to gather the facts before drawing conclusions, must be my legal background. You, on the other hand, draw your conclusions first and then go about looking for evidence to support them, and substituting innuendo when evidence is in short supply. And that's why I don't take you seriously, or anyone else pushing this line of argument. If you didn't know that famous political figures are commonly paid fat money to give fluffy speeches to corporate and conference audiences then you must have been living under a rock for many years.
The majority of people are well aware of this practice and don't see it as a moral litmus test, so I invite you to consider the possibility that the majority might actually be correct in not thinking that this is a big deal. I say this because it seems like right now you simply can't conceive of the idea that it could be anything other nefarious. Can I suggest watching more C-Span? Because they carry a lot of this sort of stuff and after a while you might come around to the idea that such speeches are a) normal and b) boring (in terms of low historical importance).
I mean, I can see understand that you might have a genuine worry about banksters trying to corrupt a political candidate, even if I think your fear is overblown. What I find laughable is the notion that they'd do so by tempting them with some normal-for-the-industry speaking fees, as opposed to offering them serious money in a secret meeting. You just don't seem to appreciate that the speaking fees are pretty nickel-and-dime amounts to someone of this status and that the speaking fees paid by bankers only add up to a small portion of the total money the Clintons have brought into their foundation in speaking fees over the last 15 years.
My comments about time have nothing to do with the speed of your reply (something I don't care about at all, as I don't send all my time on DU either), although it does show that the point sailed completely over your head.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)very common. HRC took fees from these banksters so they have expectations. It is not my fault that "evidence is in short supply"; she's the one who is not providing the evidence you need. I am not so naive, or trapped with paralysis by analysis, to understand that quid pro quo is a reasonable assumption. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
In terms of serious or secret money. not I do not think she is taking that. She does not have to. The Clintons since Bill left office in 2000 have gone from no net worth to over $230M. It wan't just bill's charm or Hillary's grating laugh that did that! They are a part of a corrupt and broken system that is sliding more and more into Oligarchic Corporatism (aka Fascism). I do not see them changing that course, they are part of it. It does not mean that Hillary may not rise to the occasion if some great collapse occurred. That's hard to say and made eve more difficult by her not releasing what she tells these criminal banking cartels.
As for a moral litmus test, well... that's the very problem now isn't it. We have a candidate, a very rare one who does not take these fees. All others do in some way and it is an important test. Will I exclude her from consideration because of it? No. Will I suspect her actions and motives? Most certainly. Just because the "majority", a questionable assertion, BTW, think this does not mean I do. I am not uninformed as the "majority" certainly is, and I am not a lemming.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)EVERYONE else does. You seriously don't think the Republicans care about them? Really?
And the REASON they are important is because of the obscene amount of money she and her husband have gotten from those people. That should matter to any sensible person who isn't blinded by the cult of personality.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)What concerns the Republicans is of little moment to me, but I seriously doubt that they're going to be arguing that Hillary Clinton shouldn't talk to people who work in the financial industry, based on the Republicans' long-standing hostility to Wall Street and their championing of economic populism.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's typical to do this kind of thing at the START of a campaign, not as it is grinding to a sad, ugly end.
I wouldn't be surprised if we never see these things.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)disenfranchised all her primary opponents' supporters into voting for a third party.
Or she'll be in court.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the side, whining and griping, as usual.
While the nation celebrates its first female POTUS, you and your buddies who won't get on the bandwagon can dine on sour grapes.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Bernie has promised to release his tax records.
Why won't Hillary release her transcripts?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bernie is HIDING SOMETHING.
It's obvious.
Amazing how his fans don't have a problem with their "hero" paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes than a Walmart cashier does.
"Do as I say" Bernie! NOT as I do!!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)We won't know what Hillary said to the banksters.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)may not register in your mind as dirt. But it's a part of the political process and the fact Sanders isn't prepared to do it means he's hiding something unflattering.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)Tax Returns for Transcripts.
If she doesn't accept the deal, he should release them anyway just to rub it in.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)Bernie & Jane's taxes. Hillary wanted Bernie to show his transcripts, he did. There are none. So now it's "show your taxes". No. SHE needs to go next. She hasn't shown her transcripts yet.
She's such a scammer.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)he did release the transcript for one speech he gave. I think he got a few thousand dollars for it and he gave that to a charity.
WHAT A GUY !!!!!!!
And she continues to play games. What a...
MattP
(3,304 posts)Bernie has been in Congrees decades and has never released his returns EVER, wtf is that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)msongs
(67,193 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)No presidential candidate has been required to release transcripts of speeches, EVER.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)This never happened before. IF anyone had gone to jail, maybe it wouldn't be so important what she said. But it is...as it's about shaping policy, and we already know, all of this was wrong! Corrupt and illegal.
The banks got bailed out, and they got the houses and kicked everyone out!
Yes, I want to know what she said. Yes, no one else ever has released their speeches, but this never happened in our lifetime, to our economy they crashed. The most important thing to know this campaign cycle IS what the fuck she said to Wall Street.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)that you're holding Secretary Clinton to a standard NOBODY has EVER been held to before. You can wish in one hand all you want, I doubt you're going to get anything out of it.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Nobody has ever done what she has done before. That's why nobody else has been held to the standard before.
This has deep implications for what her presidency would be like. Because of the huge amount of money she received for a few speeches to the moneyed interests, it is necessary that the public knows there was no quid pro quo offered or implied.
She claims there was none. The transcripts would prove that if true. She cannot claim she isn't beholden to those powerful interests if she fails to produce what she claims are innocent speeches. She is hiding something she knows will be damaging to her campaign if she doesn't.
Money corrupts and Hillary took a lot of money.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)if you think that there hasn't been a Presidential candidate that has given paid speeches before.
Anything else is just spin and politics on your part.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I repeat, NO Democratic presidential candidate has ever given speeches for that amount of money. NONE. This is uncharted territory and reeks of possible corruption.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)What planet are you living on?
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)No Democratic presidential candidate has spoken to bankers FOR THAT ABSURD AND EMBARASSING amount of money. Not one. It reeks of influence peddling and corruption.
You think it is funny?
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)How many Democratic candidates are also former first ladies and former Senators and former Secretaries of State? There is nothing absurd and embarrassing about the amount of money, that is how much famous people get paid for speaking to private audiences that can afford big speaker fees. It does not reek of influence peddling and corruption at all except in your mind. Globally famous people get paid huge speaking fees because for most people in the audience meeting a globally famous person is a big deal. You think it's corrupt because you've never seen that sort of money and it seems like a massive amount to you, but $600,000 is chump change to genuinely wealthy people. I find the notion that you think Clinton could be bribed with such a tiny amount pretty laughable, as well as your more generalized notion that any large amount of money must be the product of corruption. Frankly I think you're innumerate and your moral posturing impresses me about as much as a kid obsessing over the dimensions of his pizza slice.
Let's get something very clear. Famous people are besieged by requests to give speeches because the supply of famous people is limited and their relative rarity creates an intrinsic economic value. This is reflected in their ability to attract large speaking fees. When speaking to an audience that can afford it, like an audience of bankers, they charge fat money.
This is how the world works. I'm pretty sure you already know this, because it's not uncommon for people on DU to observe that this or that politician is on TV to promote a book or running a fake campaign for President to increase their appearance fees (eg Mike Huckabee). I am not impressed by your moral outrage because I think your position is immature, ignorant, and reflexively ideological rather than based on anything concrete. As I have said before, I think Clinton's plan to regulate Wall Street is likely to be a lot more effective than Sanders' one because its grounded in specifics and displays a much better understanding of how the financial industry and regulatory system work than Senator Sanders seems to have.
To sum up, I 'get it' perfectly well, I just don't agree with you.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Hillary will never release her speech transcripts no matter who asks for them.
That's the difference.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)Bernie and Jane are regular people; they don't have a CPA do their taxes every year, they don't have shell corporations to hide their money, they don't have a foundation set up to launder foreign money. It's as if they're being hammered about this BECAUSE of their lack of wealth.
That audio of Hillary NOT ANSWERING a direct question about her transcripts and instead bringing up Bernie's tax returns gave us a glimpse into the snide, privileged, and disingenuous woman that she is.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)You will see three homes....but just know this.
My brother and sis in law, both teachers for life have two homes. One on a lake, complete with fishing boat, ski boat, and pontoon boat! The main residence is a two story newer home, their third they worked up to, for their three kids. All went to college and got masters too!
Just think, two regular jobs, not a lot of money, and they did all that. All while having weekends off to go to to the lake house with their kids.
Bernie is older than my brother. So I expect him to accumulate some equity, property, investments, like most, before it was all rigged.
But you won't see, what you see with the Clinton's. Her speech money is enough for me to see....while knowing they had plenty of money, but their lust for greed never stops.
MADem
(135,425 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)She uses Turbo Tax. And by having done so she can retrieve a copy of any of the last 7 yeare returns by the push of a button. But for some reason she hasn't seen fit to do so.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I think that would be Illuminati meetings, not piss-ant Wall Street firms budgeting for 'celebrity' speakers.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)laughable.
I've never seen dems defend more war, tax cuts, and criminal activity, like the new DU.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I think Bernie supporters are quite confused.
Hillary, Barack, Bill - not Republicans - Democrats!
Maybe you shouldn't have a DINO tell you what a Democrat is?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And they've been trying to take the party further right for decades.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)action is at.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The transcripts sound more sinister, but why hide either?
Zira
(1,054 posts)they're due which seemed to indicate she hadn't finished them for this year yet. She acknowledged that Berne releases his taxes every time he runs and that she does his taxes.
I'm guessing this is really about finally getting some press so making people wait longer.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Releasing 2014 is good...except that it looks anemic compared to Clinton's many returns.
I'm fine with 2015 not being complete yet.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the return they have to file by Monday is inexcusable.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I consider 2015 off the table for now, but would like to see my candidate release more prior years.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)extend the time for payment of taxes owed. Those puppies have to be in the IRS' hot little hands on April 18 or the clock starts ticking on fines and interest owed. Tick tock. They could at least share with us commoners how much tax they're paying for 2015 as well as show us prior years' returns.
Zira
(1,054 posts)Jane does them herself and they've never had anything interesting in them before.
Hillarys scream of fraud - off shore tax havens, moneys from whole countries for questionable way over priced speeches after arms deals were made, etc. etc. Oh, wait that's the foundation's taxes Hillary is part owner in, which makes them Hillary's taxes.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's something fishy up in there.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)Almost no candidates release private speeches.
Most candidates release their taxes.
There is your difference.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Why do Hillary supporters keep repeating the lie that Bernie will not release them?
artyteacher
(598 posts)He hasn't release them yet.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)If he doesn't then you're right.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)or those emails. Until the FBI stepped in.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Do they think the long form birth certificate tax returns are going to show some nefarious income? On $200k?
Sheesh.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)The tax return is inconsequential nonsense.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... if he refuses to release his taxes.
And, the only people who are interested in Hillary's transcripts are her opponents.
tirebiter
(2,520 posts)Speech is protected by the 1st and 5th Amendments. Fraud isn't
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)I bet they are getting the copies ready for the debate.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Then will the Hillary release her transcripts?????
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)a compelling reason for her to do so, unlike any other Presidential candidate.
pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)This is a question or something from the Borowitz Report?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)lol
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The 1040 is analagous to the powerpoint from which Hillary worked. I'd be mostly satisfied knowing what she talked about to the banksters, even if I don't know precisely which words she used.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So you are holding Hillary to a larger requirement of disclosure.
amborin
(16,631 posts)JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,816 posts)They are both non-issues.
No one but Sanders supporters care about the transcripts, and Bernie has no shot at winning so his tax returns are meaningless.
On to November!
amborin
(16,631 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)difference is? He might have some payola to hide from the NRA, which could have influenced his votes in congress. THAT is serious. No wonder he won't release them!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Speech transcripts are not.
Interesting that a man running for President is so fearful or releasing his tax returns at this late date in the primary.
hmm....