Neo

My sacred Constitution ... I would support a term limits amendment solely because of the professional politician / lobbyist unholy union. I know of no way to limit people and their desire to influence. Term limits would raise the cost and limit the effectiveness OF lobbying.

I know the reviews on the Ryan's are mixed. Still, how cool would it be to be an NFL coach, patrolling the sidelines, with your brother? Awesome .... ****** Flag football .... yellow flag football.

Do we like A Lynn?

Shout!

You may be on to something worthy of conversation. If the right was angry, with, say, any individual person comprising Romney's 47%, you'd be dead on. If the right was angry with the code that resulted in that, we'd be talking about different things. Important things, but different things. Ol' Frank worked and did his taxes. He paid $0. Good for Frank. What's up with the code? My buddy thinks Frank has dark secrets. My buddy hates Frank. My buddy's off base.

Maybe I missed your point. You said my post was garbage. My challenge: explain why it's garbage. 1). What, exactly, is your motivation for outrage at Trump for paying the taxes legally due? 2). What course of action following the mandated calculation could he have pursued to avoid your outrage? I think he could pursue only four avenues. He could: 1). Calculate correctly and pay on time. He did. 2). Deliberately calculate incorrectly in order to pay more. He did not. 3). Calculate correctly and still pay more. He did not. 4). Deliberately calculate incorrectly and pay less. He did not. What did Hoss do? I did number 1. I may modify my "envy and loathing of the rich" hypothesis if you offer another hypothesis and tell me what he did incorrectly on April 15. I can't find your criticism of his compliance. I know you don't like his compliance. PS. I hear HRC was driving a car, titled and registered correctly, properly insured, and within the speed limit while obeying all traffic laws. Another nail! Am I absurd? I'm at a disadvantage. I've explained my objection to the outrage directed toward Trump. Let's balance the argument. What's the counter? PS ... even I'm stunned at my persistence on this matter. My spleen motivates me. However, it's not a pro Trump spleen. It's a "what personal animus bias" discomfort I have over the most benign of facts. I'm a partisan. Nothing HRC does under the law troubles me. 330 million people. 330 million different results. One code. One standard.

I will call "the least of our worries" something we agree on. Much ado, much ado ...

I just sat down with a beef on weck, hot wings, and a One Buffalo Beer with, oh, hundred or so of my closest Bills Backer friends. O'Brien's Irish Pub ... tailgate time. There's a vendor, here. He has a store in Oldsmar that sells traditional Buffalo foods with the local labels represented. Duff's, Mighty, La Nova, Sahlen's, Chiavetta's, etc. A STORE!

So we're good on the whole calculation thing? Confession .. I've not yet read up on the lawsuit.

Please forgive my lack of smallness, envy and loathing toward Trump ... I'm working on it. "The Times report noted that tax experts have found no evidence of wrongdoing connected with Trump's 1995 tax returns, though the paper claimed that the large loss likely would have drawn the attention of the IRS." I guess all I can conclude is that he meets deadlines and performs math calculations. You know, like ..... sigh. Holy, schmoly ... THREE YEARS into Clinton's first term and this was CLINTON tax policy? How am I doing with manufactured, misdirected, outrage?

Then he ain't movin'...

When I heard Baldwin was going to do Trump, my mind's eye couldn't see it. Not bad, not bad ...

Methinks you're a bit sensitive if you believe that was directed toward you. I guess we both used "moral" in our exchange, but the point I was making in that post was identical to one I'd made half a dozen times before you joined with the same or similar language. That is, none of us would do it. Moral was a word I'd used long before our exchange. There was no subtle, or unsubtle, k9 reference. Sometimes, "subtle as a ton of bricks" is hard to distinguish from "no connection whatsoever". I think you'll find my references to the inconsistent application of morality, with that word used, in posts 24540 and 24574. You'll find my reference to the concept in half a dozen others, I suppose.

Correct ... at a cost of nearly $1 billion more money he spent with others than he received himself (simplifying to cash basis in recognition of blog constraints). Quite an economic stimulus program he was. A patriot, although an inadvertent one. If he was moral, he'd have lost $1 billion and still sent money to Washington, like the rest of us would have. Ok, I wouldn't have. I, too, am an evil scum. Do you object to loss carryforwards? What happens when a farmer loses a crop to weather? I know some who did. Salt of the earth types. I'd never thought of accusing them of breaking the backs of others. For the 'privilege' of losing money in one tax year, I can offset income in another. Over time, my taxes are unchanged. Tax code that manufactures scorn and loathing .... damned conformers. Let's say I had taxable income of $150, $150, -$400, $200, and $200 in five successive years, for total 5 year income of $300. How much income would you tax me on over five years? Me? I'd tax on the $300 earned and expect nothing in years three, four and five. Gross oversimplification alert, in response to same. I am not a tax advisor nor qualified to be one. Of course, we could criticise the code and calculation, but that'd shift our attention from the solo evil empire ... as magicians know so well.

My teammates did all through youth hockey. I was not a goaltender.

I mean it's fair game to criticise his business acumen. Here, with bankruptcy and the decisions that lead to it, she is different. Hell, acumen is HIS claim. I'd nod yes and murmur mmhhmm if she asked how a successful business man leaves creditors short (although I've seen it many times and no two are alike). I'd nod yes and say mmhhmm regarding the decisions that lead to bankruptcies, but not because of the law we all follow. She is differentiated, here. I might counter that she's not swimming in the same pool if I were him, but she wins vis-à-vis acumen. Legitimate point HRC. Not all of her points require me to hold my nose, especially as they regard him. Did he pander? Yes, on "stamina". Innuendo without basis. I feel the same way about her medical records as I do his tax returns. Others disagree. She won the debate. She got a bounce. He had Grand Canyon doors he missed while driving. She prepared. He didn't or can't. I believe 'can't' more so than 'didn't'. Me, too. I think you'll agree. "I'm smart" would be a terrible answer in this case, both as a description of the circumstances and as a debating tactic.

I know ... it's like we're going to fight to sit next to him!

It all boils down to same rules for him, HRC, me and you, without pandering political arguements to the contrary.

I'm sorry, I missed the paragon of moral virtue post ... or, if you'd rather discuss government and bankruptcy laws ...

It was a home run debate move by Clinton, because we let it be. His bankruptcies are fair game. He's running on business acumen. My advice to him? Reply that I'd never be bankrupt if I could simply find someone to tax more while pointing to a dozen bankrupt federal programs. It wouldn't change his problem, but it would resonate with outsider sentiment. Bankruptcy is fair game, yes.

I've never said anything about Scandandavians legally taking advantage of city parking passes, either. And YOU've never commented on sneakers with arch supports! You heartless, double standard wheeling, human being. You never asked? Moving on from individuals conforming to laws, I suspect my unemployment law view would be less generous than yours in the pursuit of effective policy. My view on tax liabilities for billionaires would be less generous than those of the IRS, I suppose, and may be closer to your views. But I'd be honest about it, and not pander to paint myself as more virtuous if I were a candidate. I'd not nod and smile when a candidate painted him or herself similarly. My sole, narrow, firestorm inciting, point.

YES! The code's an abomination! I posted a Christmas tree grower example a year ago. Farmers! Page after page. Edit, for you - it's truly and utterly wrong. "It's" meaning the code. "It's" also meaning innuendo with regard to those who conform to it. What I called "flat" We've (poster) corrected in terms of my terminology. Progressive, more from the wealthy, but simple. Dear diary - someone compared me to Mike Dukakis today! It's been worse. Someone once suggested I was viewing HRC as Bill's eye candy!

****** Ok, I'm out did not mean I won't answer questions.

I don't know. Who's frowning at one gaming and not the other? If gaming means cheating, I'll frown at both. If gaming means following the rules, I'll frown at neither. If you don't like the rules, let's debate the rules as they apply to all of us. I'm not a fan of the rules, in most cases. That has nothing to do with DT vs HRC historically and won't until they explain how they'll influence the rules going forward. I'm "pro" unemployment insurance and "pro" income taxes when each is policy effective. Want a controversy? The world is better with less of each. I don't smirk at an individual when I say that ... unless they're cheating. To add - assuming there's an audit, there's no way the result won't be "more taxes due". I'll let the tax experts assign a probability to that sentence. If Trump depreciated an asset over five years instead of seven, I'll yawn. If he hid a corporation in his backyard, I won't.

I totally agree with Trump or anyone that calculated his or her tax obligation correctly and in good faith and then paid it, yes. Like I did. I totally disagree with sneering at that practice with nefarious innuendo. I know no one who said "that seems low so I'll send a few grand more". I don't expect anyone to say that. I'd giggle at anyone who suggests it's a reason to choose one candidate instead of the other. Join me in the campaign for simplified taxes without thousands of pages of complicated nonsense. In the meantime, everyone paid nonsense last year. Yawn, as an issue when choosing between the two.