Non-IT News Thread
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
But why should they bother? They know it will NEVER pass.
You could ask the manager to sell your a big mac at BK for $0.10, but the chances he'll go for it are nill, so do you really want to waste your time?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
Hold on - Are the audits even true? If they are, lucky I guess, if they are not, the IRS, because of privacy can't confirm or deny...
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
And my point is that your point is wrong. We know what your point is. I've debunked it. You aren't addressing what I've said, just repeating the case that I've addressed.
They aren't in an actual position to get the bill through, so stating over and over again that they are at fault doesn't mean anything. Unless YOU or THEY actually have the power to do something, you don't then blame them or you for not doing something pointless, right?
If you do, then it's your fault as much as theirs. If not, then it isn't their fault either.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
But why should they bother? They know it will NEVER pass.
You could ask the manager to sell your a big mac at BK for $0.10, but the chances he'll go for it are nill, so do you really want to waste your time?
If it never gets put up for a vote, no one will ever know the 100% factual outcome. I believe if something is of utmost importance, then get off one's butt and do something. In this instance, they need to get a bill up for vote.
I get that something are not as important after a while so I get why they don't do anything. Just tired of hearing about it yet no bill is up for a vote. Sometimes we have to say, put up or shut up! Heck, that is why I like voting, it is a yes/no answer of what the populous thinks (in Congress).
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
Absolutely, since, as we've made abundantly clear, it is not the IRS' job to ensure that the law was not broken. I know the illogical stance you are trying to set up, that we've already been clear in incorrect.
So things you need to address if you are going to say what we know you were planning to say....
- The IRS does not make sure that the law is followed.
- The IRS can't disclose if it engages the FBI.
- The FBI can't disclose if it has been engaged.
- Whether or not the IRS or the FBI have found a crime tells us nothing about if one was committed.
So, as long as you don't skip over all of those points, what was the purpose of this question?
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If it never gets put up for a vote, no one will ever know the 100% factual outcome. I believe if something is of utmost importance, then get off one's butt and do something. In this instance, they need to get a bill up for vote.
Yeah, that's not how it works though. You can say this, but it just goes back to what I said... you've not lifted a finger for this either you have essentially the same power to make it happen that they do. So why do you blame them and no one else? Conveniently you aren't mentioning the people who are standing in its way. Nor are you blaming the person who could have released the info without needing a law.
Once again... you can't have it both ways. Should they get up for a vote? No, not unless you want Trump to have an opportunity to shoot it down and you are attempting to waste the government's time from doing something that might actually be important (because it might pass.)
I want world peace, but I don't stand around shouting about it because I can do other things that do more good rather than wasting time.
What you are demanding, is that they waste time for some reason.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I get that something are not as important after a while so I get why they don't do anything. Just tired of hearing about it yet no bill is up for a vote.
You are missing the point. Entirely.
I'm tired of Trump not being arrested for treason. But just because I wish it, doesn't mean that someone has the power to protect the country just because it is needed. Just because we need to know that he's committed treason, doesn't give "person X you don't like" the power to protect us.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
And my point is that your point is wrong. We know what your point is. I've debunked it. You aren't addressing what I've said, just repeating the case that I've addressed.
They aren't in an actual position to get the bill through, so stating over and over again that they are at fault doesn't mean anything. Unless YOU or THEY actually have the power to do something, you don't then blame them or you for not doing something pointless, right?
If you do, then it's your fault as much as theirs. If not, then it isn't their fault either.
From my original standpoint, I will just have to agree to disagree with you on a few items and move along with life.
With that, it's time for dinner and time with the family. We all know that is definitely the most important.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sometimes we have to say, put up or shut up! Heck, that is why I like voting, it is a yes/no answer of what the populous thinks (in Congress).
That's really not how the government in the US works, at all. Neither the senate, nor the president, come anywhere close to representing the populace. I want the populace represented too. I want the Senate shut down as it's not democratic at all. And I want Hilary in place since she won the popular vote.
Not that I like Hilary either, but I hate someone not winning the vote getting the "representative" vote. Representative is a way of saying "not the populace."
If we are going to have a vote, I want the people's voice to matter and all aspects of the government public. You can't have a populace opinion while still having things like the tax returns secret. That's my point about freedom a while ago.
-
OMG OMG OMG....
Speaking of the IRS....
I've been waiting on my OWN tax returns since we filed in February.
We literally got our return RIGHT NOW as we were having this discussion.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
If it never gets put up for a vote, no one will ever know the 100% factual outcome. I believe if something is of utmost importance, then get off one's butt and do something. In this instance, they need to get a bill up for vote.
Then please - go and register as a candidate and get elected... because YOU'RE not doing what YOU believe should be done.. and if not you, then why should they?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sometimes we have to say, put up or shut up! Heck, that is why I like voting, it is a yes/no answer of what the populous thinks (in Congress).
That's really not how the government in the US works, at all. Neither the senate, nor the president, come anywhere close to representing the populace. I want the populace represented too. I want the Senate shut down as it's not democratic at all. And I want Hilary in place since she won the popular vote.
Not that I like Hilary either, but I hate someone not winning the vote getting the "representative" vote. Representative is a way of saying "not the populace."
If we are going to have a vote, I want the people's voice to matter and all aspects of the government public. You can't have a populace opinion while still having things like the tax returns secret. That's my point about freedom a while ago.
LOL - we've talked about how utterly bad that is in the past.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
The president can propose a bill, too. He doesn't get a vote until his veto at the end, but he has the right to propose it to congress. So just like Nancy or Chuck or hundreds of others, the president can propose a law and so falls under the same complaints as anyone else capable of proposing it.
But unlike the people you mentioned, if the president proposed it there would be a reasonable chance of it passing. So really, the people you are mentioning are the least responsible of all potential law makers, as they are the ones with the least possibility of making it happen. There are, however, some senators on the other side of the aisle and the president, who could swing the balance at least enough to make it worth the effort of trying.
-
so we already know that @pmoncho has no fucking clue about how the US government works.
But to address a specific point.
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
They had total power under Obama, yet was never done.
Just WTF are you on? It was never needed then as no one in decades had not provided them in the first place. Why would anyone waste the money to do something not needed?
The last time sitting president was asked for tax returns was Nixon in 1974. We all know how that worked out.
Since then every single president and most candidates have released their taxes. For what reason would congress need to waste time and money to pass a law for something not required.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Sometimes we have to say, put up or shut up! Heck, that is why I like voting, it is a yes/no answer of what the populous thinks (in Congress).
That's really not how the government in the US works, at all. Neither the senate, nor the president, come anywhere close to representing the populace. I want the populace represented too. I want the Senate shut down as it's not democratic at all. And I want Hilary in place since she won the popular vote.
Not that I like Hilary either, but I hate someone not winning the vote getting the "representative" vote. Representative is a way of saying "not the populace."
If we are going to have a vote, I want the people's voice to matter and all aspects of the government public. You can't have a populace opinion while still having things like the tax returns secret. That's my point about freedom a while ago.
LOL - we've talked about how utterly bad that is in the past.
There are good and bad things about a representative democracy. But it is a fact that our representative democracy also leaves people out intentionally.
That means it is not possible to be actually representative. That means it needs to be done away with, or made actually representative.
The easy example is Washington D.C. It was never intended to be such a large population center as to need representation, but that was 200 years ago. It is now millions of people without any representation in the Senate. This needs fixed.
-
Ignoring the entire issue of his returns being leaked...
Why would it be important for candidate Trump to release tax returns?
Well in the run up to 2016, how often did he make claims about his business acumen?
How are we to gauge that? Because aside from making a fuck ton of money from The Apprentice, the only thing anyone publicly knew about candidate Trump, as a business man, is that he has failed multiple times in real estate ventures.
-
Again ignoring the issue of the returns being leaked...
What have we learned from the information so far released?
We have learned that by making use of various tax laws he has managed to negate large amounts of losses. None of this is illegal. But going back to my prior post, neither does any of this also tells us that he was ever a successful business man.
Nothing says he owes money to foreign entities. haters like to speculate, but fuck speculation. Jsut stick to the actual known facts.
Paying an adjusted $750 in federal taxes means he did not make any profit (earnings) to be taxed. If you are not earning profit, then you are not a successful business man.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
If you are not earning profit, then you are not a successful business man.
This is key. He told people while running for president that he was successful. He told the IRS that he had the business acumen of a teenage McDonald's worker.
