Phx-Suns.Net

Where are you reading that she did nothing and didn't show up? It looks like she was paid fair market rate for a job. I don't know if she is qualified, if she actually did the job, or any other facts because the article you linked doesn't have any of those questions answered.

And are you really saying you need links to articles to show that the previous administration in the white house was full of unqualified family members getting paid way more to do things like solve cyber security or peace in the middle east?

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:25 am

Where are you reading that she did nothing and didn't show up? It looks like she was paid fair market rate for a job. I don't know if she is qualified, if she actually did the job, or any other facts because the article you linked doesn't have any of those questions answered.

And are you really saying you need links to articles to show that the previous administration in the white house was full of unqualified family members getting paid way more to do things like solve cyber security or peace in the middle east?

I have no idea what the family members of the previous administration got paid for. It seems that some of them did jobs, showed up for them and produced results. Did they get paid for doing nothing? Did they get paid at all? Idk, but you should post those articles to prove your "what aboutisms". I'll be happy to rake them over the coals too.

I saw it somewhere that she didn't show up for the job and didn't do anything, just got paid.

This article says that she was paid in donor cash.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/maxine-wa ... SocialFlow

Manchin and Sinema are backstabbing snakes.

Manchin, who pockets $500,000 per year from dirty coal, kills critical Biden climate deal

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/ma ... mate-deal/

Show me a single time In2 criticized the Trump children for getting rich off their father's Presidency. One. Until then I laugh at his criticism of such from Democrats. (Though I do agree that nepotism is bad and that politicians should not hire/pay their family members.)

AmareIsGod wrote:Manchin and Sinema are backstabbing snakes.

Manchin, who pockets $500,000 per year from dirty coal, kills critical Biden climate deal

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/ma ... mate-deal/

Hoooh boy .. I take it all back on manchin

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:29 pm

Show me a single time In2 criticized the Trump children for getting rich off their father's Presidency. One. Until then I laugh at his criticism of such from Democrats. (Though I do agree that nepotism is bad and that politicians should not hire/pay their family members.)

If I find an article where they got rich off the Presidency, that isn't made up. I promise, I'll post it. Until then, you should get that laugh checked and possibly stop looking at everything of "my team vs your team". Both parties are dirty af. I hate to point this out to you guys, because it might hurt a bit, but these people don't give a bleep about you. You all mean nothing to them. They will sacrifice you and your families lives for their gain if they have to. You might think you are in their club, but you are like gum on the bottom of their shoes.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:30 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:25 am

Where are you reading that she did nothing and didn't show up? It looks like she was paid fair market rate for a job. I don't know if she is qualified, if she actually did the job, or any other facts because the article you linked doesn't have any of those questions answered.

And are you really saying you need links to articles to show that the previous administration in the white house was full of unqualified family members getting paid way more to do things like solve cyber security or peace in the middle east?

I have no idea what the family members of the previous administration got paid for. It seems that some of them did jobs, showed up for them and produced results. Did they get paid for doing nothing? Did they get paid at all? Idk, but you should post those articles to prove your "what aboutisms". I'll be happy to rake them over the coals too.

I saw it somewhere that she didn't show up for the job and didn't do anything, just got paid.

This article says that she was paid in donor cash.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/maxine-wa ... SocialFlow

You realize that doesn't mean she paid her in cash, right? It just means that the source of the funding was from donors. I mean, that is the main source of funding for all elected congress people. That is why they fund raise ALL the time. So then they pay staff to run their campaigns. Some of those people design mailers and some people mail them and some people do the books for the people that work there and some people write campaign speeches and some people organize donor lists and...

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:05 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:30 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:25 am

Where are you reading that she did nothing and didn't show up? It looks like she was paid fair market rate for a job. I don't know if she is qualified, if she actually did the job, or any other facts because the article you linked doesn't have any of those questions answered.

And are you really saying you need links to articles to show that the previous administration in the white house was full of unqualified family members getting paid way more to do things like solve cyber security or peace in the middle east?

I have no idea what the family members of the previous administration got paid for. It seems that some of them did jobs, showed up for them and produced results. Did they get paid for doing nothing? Did they get paid at all? Idk, but you should post those articles to prove your "what aboutisms". I'll be happy to rake them over the coals too.

I saw it somewhere that she didn't show up for the job and didn't do anything, just got paid.

This article says that she was paid in donor cash.
https://nypost.com/2021/10/18/maxine-wa ... SocialFlow

You realize that doesn't mean she paid her in cash, right? It just means that the source of the funding was from donors. I mean, that is the main source of funding for all elected congress people. That is why they fund raise ALL the time. So then they pay staff to run their campaigns. Some of those people design mailers and some people mail them and some people do the books for the people that work there and some people write campaign speeches and some people organize donor lists and...

Yes, I understand it isn't actual cash.

But you also understand that is how congress people pay their campaign staff. They raise money from donors to pay people to run their campaigns so they can get elected to raise money to get elected... to eventually get enough 'legal' campaign donations or board seats or whatever to be a multi-multi millionaire and piss on all of us.

So the Infrastructure Bill has a part in there, where every bank in the country needs to report every transaction that is over $600 to the IRS? What is going on here?

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:37 pm

So the Infrastructure Bill has a part in there, where every bank in the country needs to report every transaction that is over $600 to the IRS? What is going on here?

That isn't accurate, but it is a big headline on facebook and infowars and the like. It is an annual summary of any account that has had funds of at least 600 flowing through it that year. So basically active accounts, that are subject to taxes, but people keep avoiding.

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:29 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:37 pm

So the Infrastructure Bill has a part in there, where every bank in the country needs to report every transaction that is over $600 to the IRS? What is going on here?

That isn't accurate, but it is a big headline on facebook and infowars and the like. It is an annual summary of any account that has had funds of at least 600 flowing through it that year. So basically active accounts, that are subject to taxes, but people keep avoiding.

What is different from what I said? Who was this suppose to targeted to?

Do you think it is bad that banks have to report their transactions? If so, why?

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:48 am

Do you think it is bad that banks have to report their transactions? If so, why?

I may be a bit older than you Marty, but I don't think it's the government's business what I spend my money on. I think it's very intrusive, and it's just a way to exhibit more control over your life, if they decide that you aren't allowed to do whatever you decide you want to do(I'm talking legally).

Do you think it's good for the government to have control or know every thing you do and everywhere you go? If so, why?

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:53 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:29 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:37 pm

So the Infrastructure Bill has a part in there, where every bank in the country needs to report every transaction that is over $600 to the IRS? What is going on here?

That isn't accurate, but it is a big headline on facebook and infowars and the like. It is an annual summary of any account that has had funds of at least 600 flowing through it that year. So basically active accounts, that are subject to taxes, but people keep avoiding.

What is different from what I said? Who was this suppose to targeted to?

You said banks have to report every transaction over $600. That isn't true. The suggestion is that they report accounts that have had at least $600 in transactions the previous year.

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:08 am

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:48 am

Do you think it is bad that banks have to report their transactions? If so, why?

I may be a bit older than you Marty, but I don't think it's the government's business what I spend my money on. I think it's very intrusive, and it's just a way to exhibit more control over your life, if they decide that you aren't allowed to do whatever you decide you want to do(I'm talking legally).

Do you think it's good for the government to have control or know every thing you do and everywhere you go? If so, why?

AGAIN, there is no detail on what you are spending your money on. Just if you have an active account. If you have an active account (deposits and withdrawals of money), you should probably be paying taxes on the source of income.

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:11 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:53 am

Indy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:29 pm

In2ition wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:37 pm

So the Infrastructure Bill has a part in there, where every bank in the country needs to report every transaction that is over $600 to the IRS? What is going on here?

That isn't accurate, but it is a big headline on facebook and infowars and the like. It is an annual summary of any account that has had funds of at least 600 flowing through it that year. So basically active accounts, that are subject to taxes, but people keep avoiding.

What is different from what I said? Who was this suppose to targeted to?

You said banks have to report every transaction over $600. That isn't true. The suggestion is that they report accounts that have had at least $600 in transactions the previous year.

So that's pretty much every account for every American, no? Those go for income payments from your job, which you probably have a W2 for. I thought it was supposed to be to hold the Billionaires accountable for not paying their fair share?

Indy wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:12 am

In2ition wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:08 am

Mori Chu wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:48 am

Do you think it is bad that banks have to report their transactions? If so, why?

I may be a bit older than you Marty, but I don't think it's the government's business what I spend my money on. I think it's very intrusive, and it's just a way to exhibit more control over your life, if they decide that you aren't allowed to do whatever you decide you want to do(I'm talking legally).

Do you think it's good for the government to have control or know every thing you do and everywhere you go? If so, why?

AGAIN, there is no detail on what you are spending your money on. Just if you have an active account. If you have an active account (deposits and withdrawals of money), you should probably be paying taxes on the source of income.

Why would they need this information? Why do they want to know if there is an active account for transactions that had over $600?

To make sure people are paying their taxes. The same reason they get a notice of every account that earns interest, even if it is $1.

Taxes, pretty freaking obvious