Best economy in 50 years
Lowest employment rate in 50 years.

Yea Orange man bad

Since you are ignorant of the law and incapable of finding it yourself, here is section 7214 ....read it and get back to me, I'll explain how it applies.



26 U.S. Code § 7214. Offenses by officers and employees of the United States

(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents
Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—
(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or
(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; or
(3) who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment; or
(4) who conspires or colludes with any other person to defraud the United States; or
(5) who knowingly makes opportunity for any person to defraud the United States; or
(6) who does or omits to do any act with intent to enable any other person to defraud the United States; or
(7) who makes or signs any fraudulent entry in any book, or makes or signs any fraudulent certificate, return, or statement; or
(8) who, having knowledge or information of the violation of any revenue law by any person, or of fraud committed by any person against the United States under any revenue law, fails to report, in writing, such knowledge or information to the Secretary; or
(9) who demands, or accepts, or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly as payment or gift, or otherwise, any sum of money or other thing of value for the compromise, adjustment, or settlement of any charge or complaint for any violation or alleged violation of law, except as expressly authorized by law so to do;
shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. The court may in its discretion award out of the fine so imposed an amount, not in excess of one-half thereof, for the use of the informer, if any, who shall be ascertained by the judgment of the court. The court also shall render judgment against the said officer or employee for the amount of damages sustained in favor of the party injured, to be collected by execution.


Edit: I'll save time, here's the other law he's violating which unambiguously states he had no choice but to turn them over immediately.

26 U.S. Code § 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information
(11) Disclosure of information regarding status of investigation of violation of this section
(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation
Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Edit: allow me to save time again, by not following 6103 (11) (f) and furnishing the return requested in writing by the chairman of the Ways and Means committee, he undeniably violates 7214 (a) (3), which comes with a 5 year sentence. Understand now?

Well, I actually need you. You keep me employed picking up your victims.

BTW, think you can change to a different cologne?

I just keep thinking this is great as long as he isn't concerned with ever getting a job. lol

(Yes I know it's funny, but employers would red flag this in seconds. lol. )

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

Fixing and upgrading our crumbling infrastructure could easily create enough of those jobs at least short term, by which I mean one to two decades, to employ every single able bodied American....granted, that's less than 1/3 of us, but would make unemployment rare.

Some countries have tried the free check/minimum income. It turned out to have zero effect on employment, no one decided they shouldn't work and just live on the stipend, it was under $600 a month, but they did find a huge benefit in well being and homelessness.
I don't see a huge difference from social security except age.

That said, I agree, what I've read of this new deal is overreaching pie in the sky dreaming that only made those supporting it seem unrealistic and not serious.

My new deal would trade all these benefits for sterilization after one child. Anyone with two kids pays more and is excluded from benefits, those with 3 or more go to work camps to pay society back for their irresponsibility. Lower the population by 1/2 and solving all these issues becomes exponentially simpler....many solve themselves.

For anyone who loves the concept in Groundhog Day and wants to see the idea explored from a couple different angles, both Edge of Tomorrow (aka Live, Die, Repeat) and Happy Death Day are solid films. Very different, but each good in its own right.

Netflix also just put out a show which employs this concept, Russian Doll, but I've not watched any of that.

Nice. Is your employer hiring IT roles like QA testers?

The difference is whether they are punching up or down, or at least should be, even if local laws don't reflect it.

Does Israel need defending? Are trans people, gay people, etc, discriminated against routinely? Then it is arguable that it is the employer's duty to his workplace environment to rid themselves of forces hostile to gender and racial diversity.

So if the person above had been actively maligning Jews, for example, it would of course be a fireable offence, but requiring them to sign some sort of pro-Israeli document is demeaning, even if you are not particularly anti-Israel or anti-Judaism.

Yeah, it’s a tricky problem.

I while there are certainly cases where an employee can impact their employers business through their beliefs, statements or actions, in general I think the burden of proof should be on the employer.

And there’s certainly no way an employee should ever be made to sign something like this.

And for the record, it goes the other way too. If a “liberal” company fired someone for refusing to sign an anti trump thing, they’d be wrong too.

Agreed,

The boundaries between freedom of speech, freedom of association and labor law just makes for a sticky problem, and one with enough sides that unfortunately people can rationalize one way for their political allies and another for their opponents.

When does the freedom of the employer to choose to disassociate themselves with speech and beliefs they deem intolerable cross the line into oppression of other's beliefs?

Maybe a a question to get less universal agreement; How does the relate to James Damore? He's 'that guy' that Google fired for his opinions on the gender gap and employment outcomes.

The easy out is to point his case is different because Google isn't a public school, but if you put that aside, are the two cases different anymore? Two people fired because they wouldn't be silent on their political beliefs?

I'm always unsure why people seem to have a problem with this. I suspect it's tort-reform-propaganda at work.

The amount of civil cases filed, aka access to the court system by the general public, should be considered an integral part of a healthy democracy.

"How often plaintiffs sue will also turn on the predictability
of the courts. Recall the standard model of litigation and settlement.

Litigation is more expensive than settlement, so disputants do best if they settle their quarrels out of court, all else equal. Suppose they know what a court will do. If so, they can settle their dispute by that expected litigated outcome and pocket the fees they would otherwise have paid their lawyers. The point is simple: if they know what a judge will do, they have no reason to ask him. Under this model, disputants primarily litigate rather than settle only when they each hold optimistic estimates of their prospects in court."

"Coffee spills, Pokemon class actions, tobacc o settlements. American courts have made a name for themselves as a wild lo ttery and a money machine for a lucky few lawyers. At least in part, however, the reput ation is unfounded. Ameri can courts seem to handle routine contract and to rt disputes as well as th eir peers in other wealthy democracies.

More generally, Americans do not file an unusually high numb er of law suits. They do not employ large numbers of judges or lawyers. They do not pay more than people in comparable countries to enforce contracts. And they do not pay unusually high prices for insurance against routine torts. "

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf

A trickle would be nice, seems like everyone got pissed on instead.

Tax cuts need to be designed so that they only apply to businesses when they employ more people.... this helps people, and it also helps the state/country, since more people working = more tax collected (in total) and all those schools are able to be funded properly - look at Sweden, a teacher is paid a massive wage, and educated people innovate and make even more money for the state thru taxes. It needs a fine balance, like gardening.

Some laws that help weed out clear corporate meddling in government policies would be nice too. Lobby groups, kickbacks etc. Completely screwed up imo.

"There is plenty of scum to go around on both sides."

Ahh the classic false equivalency that Trump supporters often resort to.

First of all, every child should be taught at a young age that just because other children may act like little shits, that doesn't mean they can. The amount of functional adult Trump supporters who use "the Democrats are bad too!" as an excuse for Trump's behavior is just astounding. It's really just a pathetic diversionary tactic used to avoid discussing the issues at hand.

Second, your claim that Democrats are just as cruel is simply not true. Blaming Democrats for the very thing Trump is guilty of is a common smear tactic employed by extremist right wing propaganda.

Take Trump's zero tolerance policy which separated minors from their families for example. Right wing propaganda outlets like OAN love showing pictures of children housed alone in Obama era detention facilities and cry foul at the liberal media at the lack of coverage. The reality is that Obama faced a huge surge of thousand of unaccompanied minors from south america in 2014 who were detained. So yes, thousands of children were detained, but they were NOT separated from the families in the first place.

And while some families were separated during Obama's tenure, Obama's policies tried to limit this as much as possible. It is a far cry from what Trump's zero tolerance policy accomplished. The "liberal" media did not report this under Obama OR Bush simply because it was not an issue. If you believed that there was unfair media coverage for Trump on this issue, then you were lied to and manipulated. Its part of what we discussed earlier how Trump uses lies to discredit the media and further erode our democracy.

The point is that right wing propaganda and Trump himself routinely uses lies and deception to paint himself as the target of a "liberal media bias" that they themselves manufactured. And his gullible supporters like yourself love believing in his victim complex. If you don't believe me, then just refer to non partisan international sources like the BBC and you'll soon discover that Trump is just as shitty from an impartial view as the "biased liberal media" portrays him.

Both sides are not the same, no matter what lies Trump and Fox News et al. tries to tell you. And there are plenty of respectable media sources which are not CNN which also exposes Trump for the lying scum that he is.