another witch caught
Well, by Democrat's definition of a witch. (any indictment for anything at any time)
If he put his money from the illegal lobbying tin a US bank, then we can add the money laundering charges, too. Maybe he and Manafort can be be cellmates.
.
Well, we are getting close to the release of the redacted version of the Mueller report.
Some predictions:
It will not satisfy the leaders of the witch hunt, and therefore, it will not satisfy the millions of mindless followers. It is a part of the all out attack on Trump that they will not be satisfied.
Nadler
They will zero in on some grand jury testimony. They will zero in on a redacted name, believing (or saying they believe) the name under the black ink is "Vladimir Putin".
They will imply that Mueller missed the obvious incriminating statements/actions, and that he together with Barr, conspired to cover up the damning portions of his pwn report'
The witch hunt abides.
Sanders on Taxe returns
I've got to go with sanders on this. It's not that members of congress are stupid, although some certainly are. But people with degrees in law and engineering do not understand complex tax returns, any more than CPA's can calculate the stresses on a bridge.
Once the witch hunters get Trump's tax returns, they will be complaining that they cannot find the line where Putin bribed Trump, so therefore (1) clearly he has failed to pay his taxes on that income, as (2) it must have been covered up since they
know it happened. The inability to find it it will be proof of the cover up.
(04-15-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sanders on Taxe returns
I've got to go with sanders on this. It's not that members of congress are stupid, although some certainly are. But people with degrees in law and engineering do not understand complex tax returns, any more than CPA's can calculate the stresses on a bridge.
Once the witch hunters get Trump's tax returns, they will be complaining that they cannot find the line where Putin bribed Trump, so therefore (1) clearly he has failed to pay his taxes on that income, as (2) it must have been covered up since they know it happened. The inability to find it it will be proof of the cover up.
There are certainly some in Congress who probably don’t have the intellect to digest tax returns - but this is such a bizarre and stupid line of thinking. If we can’t trust our elected reps to review tax returns, how can they be trusted with the power to make war? To levy those taxes? To decide what is and isn’t law? These people have staffs and the ability to hire experts to review the data for them.
Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, as opposed to suggesting that anyone isn’t smart enough to do anything. Glass houses and all (regarding the admin she works for).
(04-15-2019 09:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sanders on Taxe returns
I've got to go with sanders on this. It's not that members of congress are stupid, although some certainly are. But people with degrees in law and engineering do not understand complex tax returns, any more than CPA's can calculate the stresses on a bridge.
Once the witch hunters get Trump's tax returns, they will be complaining that they cannot find the line where Putin bribed Trump, so therefore (1) clearly he has failed to pay his taxes on that income, as (2) it must have been covered up since they know it happened. The inability to find it it will be proof of the cover up.
There are certainly some in Congress who probably don’t have the intellect to digest tax returns - but this is such a bizarre and stupid line of thinking. If we can’t trust our elected reps to review tax returns, how can they be trusted with the power to make war? To levy those taxes? To decide what is and isn’t law? These people have staffs and the ability to hire experts to review the data for them.
Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, as opposed to suggesting that anyone isn’t smart enough to do anything. Glass houses and all (regarding the admin she works for).
I was thinking of Maxine Waters and a few others. While they may be cunning, they are not trained. According to the letter you published, trump's tax returns have been under continuous audit for 17 years by people who DO know what they are doing. What do you expect Maxine Waters or Adam Schiff to find that the the experts missed? Or their hired CPAs?
I would not expect a member of Congress (or me) to understand what you do, yet that does not mean we are stupid. We just lack the training. I wouldn't hire you to do my taxes - although I would prefer you to Maxine Waters et al.
How many CPAs with a specialty in taxes are in Congress anyway? If any, how many are Democrats?
(04-15-2019 09:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, in addition to suggesting that anyone isn’t trained enough to understand and examine them.
Agree with the general sentiment here, with the italicized corrections. But this argument has been made since before the election, with the same results as talking to a brick wall. If people who do not understand insist that something is being hidden, no amount of logic or reason will change their minds.
(04-15-2019 09:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 09:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sanders on Taxe returns
I've got to go with sanders on this. It's not that members of congress are stupid, although some certainly are. But people with degrees in law and engineering do not understand complex tax returns, any more than CPA's can calculate the stresses on a bridge.
Once the witch hunters get Trump's tax returns, they will be complaining that they cannot find the line where Putin bribed Trump, so therefore (1) clearly he has failed to pay his taxes on that income, as (2) it must have been covered up since they know it happened. The inability to find it it will be proof of the cover up.
There are certainly some in Congress who probably don’t have the intellect to digest tax returns - but this is such a bizarre and stupid line of thinking. If we can’t trust our elected reps to review tax returns, how can they be trusted with the power to make war? To levy those taxes? To decide what is and isn’t law? These people have staffs and the ability to hire experts to review the data for them.
Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, as opposed to suggesting that anyone isn’t smart enough to do anything. Glass houses and all (regarding the admin she works for).
I was thinking of Maxine Waters and a few others. While they may be cunning, they are not trained. According to the letter you published, trump's tax returns have been under continuous audit for 17 years by people who DO know what they are doing. What do you expect Maxine Waters or Adam Schiff to find that the the experts missed? Or their hired CPAs?
I would not expect a member of Congress (or me) to understand what you do, yet that does not mean we are stupid. We just lack the training. I wouldn't hire you to do my taxes - although I would prefer you to Maxine Waters et al.
How many CPAs with a specialty in taxes are in Congress anyway? If any, how many are Democrats?
I saw something that said there are 10 tax professionals serving in Congress.
And I agree about the general expectation of understanding of all issues - but that's why each member of Congress has a staff. Those staff members find experts and provide information that allows them to digest complex info across a broad range of issues. Some legislatures are better than others at this, though.
And while I agree with both of the general statements you've made, you aren't actually discussing what Sanders said. Sanders was quite clear - she felt that Congress lacked the intellect, not the training, to understand the issues.
(04-15-2019 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And while I agree with both of the general statements you've made, you aren't actually discussing what Sanders said. Sanders was quite clear - she felt that Congress lacked the intellect, not the training, to understand the issues.
Sanders said, "Not smart enough." That could be either intellect or training. I don't see that she is clearly saying that they lack the intellect.
What they don't lack is the inherent inclination to find any molehill they can in those returns and try to make it into a mountain. I would question their integrity far more than I would question either their intellect or their training.
Tax professionals is a very broad term. Under the loosest of definitions, I could have been called a tax professional, unless charging for one's services is requisite to be a "professional". I did the taxes for my businesses, up to a point. at that point,, I turned it over to better qualified people. I bet your organization has people considered tax professionals who do what i did - file 941s, organize the info for 1120s, and for other returns. I have dealt with corporate returns, partnership returns, sole proprietorships, estate taxes, trust returns, and many other minor returns, as 940s and real estate sales, not to mention the reporting of gambling income. I do not consider myself within light-years of being capable of analyzing Trump's returns. Just having a CPA is not enough, and they guy who does taxes at H&R Block, although a tax professional, is not qualified either.
Look at it this way: You are an engineer. Do you hire the same engineer to design a retaining wall as you would hire to build a 99 story building? Just having an engineering degree or calling oneself a construction professional does not make one size fit all.
if the Dems farm out a second audit of Trump's tax returns, returns that have been under audit for 17 years, to a top tax firm, will they shut up until the results are in (probably in a couple or thre years at the earliest)? No. You can bet these lawyers and professional orators will find something in the first couple of days, some the the IRS with dozens of tax pros miss for years.
I am of sufficient familiarity with tax, returns, and audits to tell you and your superiors in the party that there is nothing on Trump's 1040 that will give your the information you desire to find, even if the information is real and actually does exist. it is part of the widespread lack of understanding that leads the hoi polloi of your party to think there are nuggets of gold just lying on the surface to be picked up by any casual reader. The top people know there is nothing there, but they need an issue to pick at, lest they lose voters.
I am happy not be associated with this conspiracy theory. I wonder why you are happy to be associated with it.
Now, who are the ten tax pros in congress?
(04-15-2019 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And while I agree with both of the general statements you've made, you aren't actually discussing what Sanders said. Sanders was quite clear - she felt that Congress lacked the intellect, not the training, to understand the issues.
Sanders said, "Not smart enough." That could be either intellect or training. I don't see that she is clearly saying that they lack the intellect.
What they don't lack is the inherent inclination to find any molehill they can in those returns and try to make it into a mountain. I would question their integrity far more than I would question either their intellect or their training.
How many gallons of water do you want to carry for them?
She is clearly not saying they lack training. If you were talking to a client who asked you to provide Joe as an expert witness on an IP dispute, just Joe has no IP experience, would you tell them Joe wasn’t smart enough for the job? Or would you say Joe doesn’t have experience, expertise, etc.?
If they were smart, they would not be calling to see his returns expecting to find evidence of collusion.
If they were smart, they would not be calling to see his tax returns expecting to find evidence of tax evasion.
If they were smart, they would not be be calling to see his tax returns expecting to be able to find his net worth.
What are the other reasons they are calling to see his returns?
(04-15-2019 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Tax professionals is a very broad term. Under the loosest of definitions, I could have been called a tax professional, unless charging for one's services is requisite to be a "professional". I did the taxes for my businesses, up to a point. at that point,, I turned it over to better qualified people. I bet your organization has people considered tax professionals who do what i did - file 941s, organize the info for 1120s, and for other returns. I have dealt with corporate returns, partnership returns, sole proprietorships, estate taxes, trust returns, and many other minor returns, as 940s and real estate sales, not to mention the reporting of gambling income. I do not consider myself within light-years of being capable of analyzing Trump's returns. Just having a CPA is not enough, and they guy who does taxes at H&R Block, although a tax professional, is not qualified either.
Look at it this way: You are an engineer. Do you hire the same engineer to design a retaining wall as you would hire to build a 99 story building? Just having an engineering degree or calling oneself a construction professional does not make one size fit all.
if the Dems farm out a second audit of Trump's tax returns, returns that have been under audit for 17 years, to a top tax firm, will they shut up until the results are in (probably in a couple or thre years at the earliest)? No. You can bet these lawyers and professional orators will find something in the first couple of days, some the the IRS with dozens of tax pros miss for years.
I am of sufficient familiarity with tax, returns, and audits to tell you and your superiors in the party that there is nothing on Trump's 1040 that will give your the information you desire to find, even if the information is real and actually does exist. it is part of the widespread lack of understanding that leads the hoi polloi of your party to think there are nuggets of gold just lying on the surface to be picked up by any casual reader. The top people know there is nothing there, but they need an issue to pick at, lest they lose voters.
I am happy not be associated with this conspiracy theory. I wonder why you are happy to be associated with it.
Now, who are the ten tax pros in congress?
As I said - I saw something on tv. Did a quick Google. 10 certified public accountants.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html
(04-15-2019 12:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If they were smart, they would not be calling to see his returns expecting to find evidence of collusion.
If they were smart, they would not be calling to see his tax returns expecting to find evidence of tax evasion.
If they were smart, they would not be be calling to see his tax returns expecting to be able to find his net worth.
What are the other reasons they are calling to see his returns?
If you want to double down on the “they’re not smart enough” that’s your choice. But there is no reason to try and suggest Sanders meant anything but what she said
(04-15-2019 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Tax professionals is a very broad term. Under the loosest of definitions, I could have been called a tax professional, unless charging for one's services is requisite to be a "professional". I did the taxes for my businesses, up to a point. at that point,, I turned it over to better qualified people. I bet your organization has people considered tax professionals who do what i did - file 941s, organize the info for 1120s, and for other returns. I have dealt with corporate returns, partnership returns, sole proprietorships, estate taxes, trust returns, and many other minor returns, as 940s and real estate sales, not to mention the reporting of gambling income. I do not consider myself within light-years of being capable of analyzing Trump's returns. Just having a CPA is not enough, and they guy who does taxes at H&R Block, although a tax professional, is not qualified either.
Look at it this way: You are an engineer. Do you hire the same engineer to design a retaining wall as you would hire to build a 99 story building? Just having an engineering degree or calling oneself a construction professional does not make one size fit all.
if the Dems farm out a second audit of Trump's tax returns, returns that have been under audit for 17 years, to a top tax firm, will they shut up until the results are in (probably in a couple or thre years at the earliest)? No. You can bet these lawyers and professional orators will find something in the first couple of days, some the the IRS with dozens of tax pros miss for years.
I am of sufficient familiarity with tax, returns, and audits to tell you and your superiors in the party that there is nothing on Trump's 1040 that will give your the information you desire to find, even if the information is real and actually does exist. it is part of the widespread lack of understanding that leads the hoi polloi of your party to think there are nuggets of gold just lying on the surface to be picked up by any casual reader. The top people know there is nothing there, but they need an issue to pick at, lest they lose voters.
I am happy not be associated with this conspiracy theory. I wonder why you are happy to be associated with it.
Now, who are the ten tax pros in congress?
As I said - I saw something on tv. Did a quick Google. 10 certified public accountants.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com...index.html
Yeah, me too. here is one I found:
https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/cpaadvoca...gress.html
"Rep. Suozzi is a former licensed CPA in the State of New York who worked as an auditor for Arthur Anderson & Company before attending law school."
Former? Seems like he is a quarter century out of date. Been a few changes since then.
But in any case, I doubt that any of them are qualified to inspect the returns of an international enterprise, comprised of hundreds of sub-entities, any more than you are.
(04-15-2019 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 11:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 10:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And while I agree with both of the general statements you've made, you aren't actually discussing what Sanders said. Sanders was quite clear - she felt that Congress lacked the intellect, not the training, to understand the issues.
Sanders said, "Not smart enough." That could be either intellect or training. I don't see that she is clearly saying that they lack the intellect.
What they don't lack is the inherent inclination to find any molehill they can in those returns and try to make it into a mountain. I would question their integrity far more than I would question either their intellect or their training.
How many gallons of water do you want to carry for them?
She is clearly not saying they lack training. If you were talking to a client who asked you to provide Joe as an expert witness on an IP dispute, just Joe has no IP experience, would you tell them Joe wasn’t smart enough for the job? Or would you say Joe doesn’t have experience, expertise, etc.?
I'd say Joe wasn't smart enough about the subject matter for the job. People can be--and are--very bright, but lack specific subject matter knowledge. So with respect to the subject matter, they are not smart enough.
Not smart enough can be stupid (lack intellectual capacity) or ignorant (know nothing about the subject matter). I'm not carrying water for anyone, beyond questioning your assertion that her comment automatically meant lack of intellect rather than lack of knowledge. That's just not clear from me.
But this is the point I've been making from the beginning. Unless you are very familiar with how complex tax returns work, you lack the knowledge to interpret properly what information they contain. If you are very familiar with how such returns work, then you already know that such returns are extremely unlikely to contain any information responsive to the supposed reasons for asking for them.
All you are apt to see on Trump's 1040 are single-number entries from K-1s for various S Corps, partnerships, and LLCs through which the Trump organization conducts business. To learn anything about details behind those numbers, you would need to obtain those S Corp, partnership, and LLC returns. And those are not releasable by law without the consent of all shareholders, partners, and/or members. Unless you can establish probable cause, the IRS can't do it and Trump himself can't do it. Plus, as someone pointed out, these returns are all subject to audit by the IRS, and by law a president's returns must be audited. Exactly what do a bunch of congress critters expect to turn up that was not previously noted by a bevy of highly trained and qualified IRS agents looking for precisely the kinds of things being alleged?
If you really want to know the answers to the questions that the tax returns will supposedly answer, you should know that the far better information source would be his personal financial statements. But none of them are asking for that, just tax returns. I can think of two reasons: One, none of them want to to disclose the same things about themselves, just the fill-in-the-blank standard reporting forms that are required by law. Two, this isn't about a review for wrongdoing, but rather just and excuse to go on a fishing trip to find molehills that can be turned into mountains.
So yes, I would say that anyone who is asking for tax returns for the purpose of discovering some alleged connection to "the Russians" or some other alleged wrongdoing lacks sufficient subject matter knowledge to be "smart enough" to know what he/she was looking at.
Quote:beyond questioning your assertion that her comment automatically meant lack of intellect rather than lack of knowledge.
lad will never agree with the alternative here. That doesnt fit the Orange Man Bad mantra well enough. Therefore any other possible explanation that doesnt comport with 'Orange Man Bad' *must* be incorrect. QED.
(04-15-2019 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:beyond questioning your assertion that her comment automatically meant lack of intellect rather than lack of knowledge.
lad will never agree with the alternative here. That doesnt fit the Orange Man Bad mantra well enough. Therefore any other possible explanation that doesnt comport with 'Orange Man Bad' *must* be incorrect. QED.
And neither will any of y’all - that perhaps Sanders was speaking her mind, and not talking about the technical training that members of Congress do or don’t have.
I can’t imagine ever saying someone isn’t smart as a proxy for them not having been trained in something. Should I tell my boss she isn’t smart enough if she talks about a topic she doesn’t have formal training in? I could say she isn’t competent, for sure.
It has nothing to do with the “orange man bad” trope y’all blabber about. It has a lot more to do with the “orange man administration’s general lack of competence” trope you miss.
But keep on telling yourself Sanders may have been speaking to the competency of Congress - that’s a funny little delusion.
Bottom line: Anyone who demands to see Trump's tax returns because of the possibility that they would show either 1) some indication of "collusion" or 2) some indication that is net worth is somehow less than claimed, obviously does not know enough about tax returns to make any kind of sensible analysis of them.
(04-15-2019 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-15-2019 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:beyond questioning your assertion that her comment automatically meant lack of intellect rather than lack of knowledge.
lad will never agree with the alternative here. That doesnt fit the Orange Man Bad mantra well enough. Therefore any other possible explanation that doesnt comport with 'Orange Man Bad' *must* be incorrect. QED.
And neither will any of y’all - that perhaps Sanders was speaking her mind, and not talking about the technical training that members of Congress do or don’t have.
I can’t imagine ever saying someone isn’t smart as a proxy for them not having been trained in something. Should I tell my boss she isn’t smart enough if she talks about a topic she doesn’t have formal training in? I could say she isn’t competent, for sure.
It has nothing to do with the “orange man bad” trope y’all blabber about. It has a lot more to do with the “orange man administration’s general lack of competence” trope you miss.
But keep on telling yourself Sanders may have been speaking to the competency of Congress - that’s a funny little delusion.
I'll tell you right now laddy that i am not smart enough to pilot a 747. How about you?
I *am* smart enough to note when someone is so stuck in a predisposition to language to have to argue incessantly about that language.
And yes, I have been in meetings with CEOs before when *the* most capable trial attorneys around have been deemed 'not smart enough' for a case that wasnt in their wheelhouse.
Ooops, there goes your smashing fing example blown up to itty bitty pieces..... Should I recite some more for you?
How about the groups of blue chip forensic accountants being labeled as 'not smart enough' for a round with the IRS because of their inexperience with 'active'-type representations? Yep, seen that.....
Seen a three PhD holder 'sent to the showers' for a research division VP with the same 'not smart enough' simply because a single PhD holder had more focused and relevant credentials. Seen that too....
Seen a two PhD NYU economist (economics and applied math) deemed 'not smart enough' in light of a single PhD economist as an expert for damages in a patent case in ED Texas --- the single PhD economist had also been a 2 time Pro Bowl offensive guard for the Dallas Cowboys).
lad, simply because *you* cant *imagine* it (the horrors, the horrors) doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
But I guess you will tell me to ignore those experiences and defer to your blank assertion and example, which we seemingly have a lot of contra- real world examples to consider against.
'Delusion' -- funny characterization of real world experiences, wouldnt you agree?