Suggesting that Hillary Clinton was ever in a position to significantly influence tax law is patently false. All tax law is constitutionally mandated to initiate from the House of Representatives.
Politics extends beyond the primitive definition of their roles. To politicians, it’s a game; it’s tug of war on issues. It’s common for Representatives and Senators (Congressmen) to discuss ideas for what would and wouldn’t pass. While my initial comment was referring to politicians, in general, indirectly Hillary still had influence (even as a post-Senator she has some degree of influence).
That being said, Senators absolutely have the ability to modify and change a Bill. My comment was both about making and adjusting laws. As I understand it, Senators can redraft the entiretly of its contents. While it isn’t as common, it still happens. It’s almost a role reversal. If the Senate does modify a bill (minutely or entirely) and the Senate votes/approves it, it still has to be approved by the House before being sent to the President.
Hillary Clinton isn’t solely responsible for making and enacting laws — that would be a totalitarian regime — but she did work with others, including the House, to push a Bill to the Senate, which as a Senator she voted on Bills. As a member of Congress, yes she does have influence over tax law.
Criticisms from the Right
I don’t really see any of this as being about holding Trump individually responsible for anything per se, so much as highlighting a cultural inconsistency. The Republican Party has nominated Trump. Prominent members of that Party have definitely criticized (and I believe demonized) poor(er) people for not paying federal income tax. For those same people to now laud Trump as brilliant for presumably not paying those same taxes is, at the least, tone deaf.
I can’t say I disagree here.
While it sounds familiar, nothing is coming to mind specifically regarding the demonizing. To a degree, the prominent individuals of a platform do have more weight, but there could have also been some pushback from the platform members (in this case general Republicans), regarding certain statements.
Lower Class Contributions
And suggesting that poor people who don’t pay income taxes are not contributing to society is both disingenuous and cruel. The majority of the 46–47% of the U.S. population who do not pay federal income taxes are regular wage workers, retirees, military personnel — in other words, people who have contributed and continue to contribute to society.
First, thank you for keeping me honest. When talking about the lower class, I was referring to the underclass, not the working poor, but I skewed off point. The lower class, including those that are part of the working class, think the top should cover more.
There is a very big distinction. I certainly do think that those actively engaged in legal employment should be recgonized as contributors and productive members of society. I also try to promote the notion that even the minimum-wage employees are choosing an honest life over a life of crime; which is increasingly important to remember this day in age.
Trump is certainly not of any more inherent value to society than all of those people are. When a “job creator” like Trump hires someone from the “lower classes” to perform labor he is not doing either that individual or the society as a whole some sort of magnanimous favor. He is purchasing a needed service. And, although I personally have no idea what Trump’s pay scale is for every worker he has ever employed, chances are fairly good that some of those workers have been employed at a wage that puts them below the threshold for accruing federal income tax debt. These are not people “just living off a system and requesting more taxes from the top to provide them.”
I think I disagree here.
While Trump may depend on others to perform work, Trump provides opportunity. Creating opportunity is not easy and there is tremendous value in doing so.
You see the end result. A person provides a job, but another person needs to fill it. To be honest, there are less people that have the ambition, initiative, the drive, and are willing to take the risk than there are people that can work. The skill sets of running a business and working a business are different and Trump’s are more coveted.
It’s important to see the value of a skill set as well. Primitive skills are more plentiful, which is why a janitorial position is much less valuable to hold than something that requires specialized understanding, like a neurosurgeon. What your line of thinking backs is a communistic approach, which everyone contributes, everyone should make the same; but that’s ridiculous. Even within a highly specialized field, whether its neuroscience or a mechanic, certain individuals excel and are thus more preferred, more capable, than others. They deserve a higher pay rate.
Trump’s Qualification is his Success in Business
If the media is not taking a broad enough or fair enough view of Trump’s tax data, he has no one to blame but himself. He could release the information at any time, ... Trump has demanded transparency of other candidates/officials in the past regarding things that no one had ever previously been even asked to display. It does seem suspicious, and perhaps insulting, that he now refuses to provide any transparency in one area in which candidates have traditionally been transparent, and the one realm that might best highlight whether or not he actually is qualified to do the job he seeks.
Yeah, I haven’t given much consideration into why he doesn’t. It’s certainly a point of contention, but how much is that the media grasping at straws?
Given Trump’s history about showing documentation, it is kind of comical, but before all is said and done, I think he will, though it’s not a law that says he needs to. Remember, it was back in the 60s when the tradition (not law) was started by Mitt Romney’s father; whereas, it’s a law that a candidate must be a citizen.
That said, we can speculate the reasons why he doesn’t:
- he could be hiding something
- he could be embarrassed by lack of net worth
- he could desire others not to know where his fortune is (intellectual property / competitive advantage)
- he could want to protect a third party (perhaps his children)
- it could serve as ammunition (even if legal) for the competing campaign
There’s many reasons why he may not release, some more justified than others. Some are why we need to see it.
The most important thing is that we want to ensure there is no conflict of interest if he was to become a President of our country. Historically, there’s no chance of that happening — politicians get voted into office and become rich, whether it’s in their name, their significant others, or their entourage.
We want to protect our country from the influence of foreign nations. We need an unbiased, objective, leader to serve the nation. Not someone that serves a select few.
My stance is still anti-Hillary, not pro-Trump. If Trump is the means to ensuring Hillary does not reach office, then that’s it, but I would love our biased-media to introduce others, whether its Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or Ken Bone.