Recent Posts
So, why wasn't it us who did these things? Focus on helping the average American taxpayer keep more money in their pocketbook and you'll always have their attention.
Ms. Toad (38,704 posts)
Wed Apr 15, 2026, 12:24 AM
16
Recommend
Ugh . . . I feel dirty.
Just did my daughter's taxes . . . she gets a little over $500 more back because of the no-tax-on-overtime. Then I went to price check a medication I needed to order. Costco wasn't better than Part D, so I ran over to GoodRx. It suggested that the brand name medication might be cheaper. It was (about half price of the generic) . . . and it was branded TrumpRx. Yuck.
And I know when I finish my taxes tomorrow (well, now today) that we'll get a similar benefit from the old geezer's additional deduction.
Lifeafter70 (1,113 posts)
1. I felt the same way
Reply to Ms. Toad (Original post)
Wed Apr 15, 2026, 12:32 AM
When we got the deduction on my SS.
I retired last October and we usually owe about 2k because of my earnings and SS. This year we got a refund around 1,800.
JBTaurus83 (1,515 posts)
2. At least the money is going into your hands
Reply to Ms. Toad (Original post)
Wed Apr 15, 2026, 12:34 AM
And you can use some for a good cause. Certainly more effective than anything this fascist regime would spend it on.
PeaceWave (3,546 posts)
3. Congratulations. You are now complicit...
Reply to Ms. Toad (Original post)
Wed Apr 15, 2026, 12:43 AM
Just kidding. But, seriously, I have been telling folks for a while now that we Democrats missed several opportunities over the last couple of decades to fix the tax code on behalf of American taxpayers. Then, Trump came along and (1) doubled the standard tax deduction, (2) created a senior tax deduction, (3) made up to $25,000 in tips tax deductible and (4) provided some degree of tax deduction for overtime pay. As Joe Biden would say, these are "big ****ing deals." So, why wasn't it us who did these things? Focus on helping the average American taxpayer keep more money in their pocketbook and you'll always have their attention.
Not to mention, there's no evidence Obama knows how to negotiate. His first offer is , "OK guys, How much money will it take to screw Israel, the US, and Israel".
dumb Canadian doesn't know anything about MAGACanada? Well no damn wonder.
Transcript From 2019 Exposes More Deep State Machinations Against Trump
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (“HPSCI”) released two transcripts Monday morning from the 2019 closed-door interviews of the then-Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson. The just-released transcripts reveal new details behind the scheming that led to the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
That first impeachment trial focused on President Trump’s July 25, 2019 telephone conversation with the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. After the call, a supposed-whistleblower — more on that shortly — filed a complaint with the inspector general’s office on August 12, 2019, charging that Trump sought Zelensky’s assistance in investigating the Bidens to interfere in the 2020 election.
...
Vindman had listened to Trump’s call with Zelensky in real time from the situation room and testified about his impressions of the call. But Vindman was not the “whistleblower.” According to Real Clear Investigations, the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella was the “whistleblower.” And here’s where the just-released transcripts make things interesting.
After the House launched the impeachment inquiry and the “whistleblower’s” complaint was made public, IG Atkinson testified in a second closed-door interview. During that October 4, 2019 testimony, Atkinson explained that the “whistleblower” had provided him with a “Memorandum of Conversation” dated July 26, 2019. That memorandum purported to summarize a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed individual Atkinson identified as “Witness One.”
Atkinson then proceeded to explain that “Witness One,” had “listened to the telephone call in real-time,” which matches up precisely with Vindman. Yet, Atkinson testified that in assessing whether the “whistleblower” complaint was credible, they never spoke with Witness One. Instead, Atkinson testified that they interviewed two of the “whistleblower’s” supervisors to assess their perspective of the “whistleblower.” The IG office also assessed whether the whistleblower held any bias.
The IG’s office was kicking the wrong car’s tires: The so-called whistleblower had no first-hand knowledge of the call and was merely repeating Witness One’s statements. Or, as The Federalist’s editor-in-chief put it, “Vindman, Not Whistleblower, Was Driving Force Behind Impeachment.” But Atkinson didn’t speak with Vindman or assess his credibility or bias before finding the “whistleblower’s” complaint was credible.
The dam broke after the San Francisco Chronicle reported on allegations made by a former staffer who accused Swalwell of sexual assault. CNN released a follow-up report that not only provided additional details of the alleged assault but also included more alleged victims. Swalwell has denied the claims. ...
But the allegations were not just uncovered or recently discovered. Self-described East Bay political journalist Steve Tavares said Saturday that numerous officials knew about the allegations against Swalwell for more than a decade.
“I’ve covered Eric Swa[l]well since he was a member of the Dublin City Council. Shortly after being elected to Congress in 2013, his behavior towards women was known by all levels of our local government and the Alameda County Democratic Party,” Tavares said, adding he “tried repeatedly to get the stories out” but that the alleged victims also chose not to speak out.
Tavares’ post implies that at least one reporter (Tavares) knew about this pattern and that local officials in the Democrat Party apparatus apparently had some level of awareness.
...
Then there is a 2017 CNN report that alleged that “more than half a dozen interviewees independently named one California congressman for pursuing female staffers” but that the outlet would not name the congressman “because the stories are unverified.”
While it still remains unclear who the lawmakers referenced are, it does leave readers wondering whether one of those lawmakers was Swalwell. And regardless of whether it was Swalwell, CNN’s defense that they would not identify the lawmakers because the claims were “unverified” stands in sharp contrast to how allegations against those on the right side of aisle are covered.
Contrast the propaganda press’s decades-long incuriosity about what appears to be an open secret surrounding Swalwell to the coverage of baseless accusations levied against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. ...
