Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Chit Chat
Chit Chat
New Discussion

Presidential candidates: tax and medical records

emmaaaemmaaa mod
First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
in Chit Chat
I was curious as to where all of you stood on this debate.

Do you think Presidential candidates should be required or obligated to release their tax records and medical records? Why or why not?

Report Reply to Post

Re: Presidential candidates: tax and medical records

  • short+sassyshort+sassy member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its

    Definitely not medical records.  It would basically be illegal in any other job to require medical records, so I don't think the Presidency should be any different.  There are jobs that require a medical release from a doctor.  But, perhaps I'm wrong, I don't think there is any job that can legally require a person to release ALL of their medical records.

    I have the same attitude for personal tax records.  They are personal and therefore nobody else's business to just unilaterally make them available.  On a related topic, a lot of employer's run credit checks nowadays, but that is typically done when there is a guideline that an applicant/employee's credit score has to be XXX or can't have any X,Y, and/or Z's.  But then whatever that guideline is has to be universally applied.

    The requirements for running for President are outlined in the Constitution.  And there aren't many.  So, if it isn't a requirement that candidates provide X,Y, or Z...it becomes their choice to do so.

    Required?  No.  Obligated?  Perhaps.  I could see an argument for that. 

    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    Report Reply
  • lyndausvilyndausvi mod
    First Anniversary First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    For the most part I do not understand why medical needs to be disclosed.   Although it would be a waste of resources to elect someone with a known terminal illness that would prevent them from serving their 4 years.  I would hope a candidate would disclose such a thing.   

    That said, I'm on the fence over mental disorders though.  I'm not sure I would want someone who is say bi-polar, to be the holder of the codes that could start a nuclear war.       Yes, on their meds people who are bi-polar can function just fine.  However, I've known quite a few people who have stop taking their meds.  It's a viscous cycle, not sure I want the president to be on that cycle.  I'm kind-of torn.

    I do not get why taxes need to be released.   The IRS is a big brother of sorts.  If  a candidate isn't filing we would know.    The details of how much they make, paid in taxes or gave to charity is irrelevant to me.    Knowing they are filing is good enough for me.







    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    Report Reply
  • sparklepants41sparklepants41 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    lyndausvi said:
    For the most part I do not understand why medical needs to be disclosed.   Although it would be a waste of resources to elect someone with a known terminal illness that would prevent them from serving their 4 years.  I would hope a candidate would disclose such a thing.   

    That said, I'm on the fence over mental disorders though.  I'm not sure I would want someone who is say bi-polar, to be the holder of the codes that could start a nuclear war.       Yes, on their meds people who are bi-polar can function just fine.  However, I've known quite a few people who have stop taking their meds.  It's a viscous cycle, not sure I want the president to be on that cycle.  I'm kind-of torn.

    I do not get why taxes need to be released.   The IRS is a big brother of sorts.  If  a candidate isn't filing we would know.    The details of how much they make, paid in taxes or gave to charity is irrelevant to me.    Knowing they are filing is good enough for me.

    Definitely in favor of releasing tax returns. And I'm on the fence about medical records.

    Re; the bolded, I agree with you Lynda. I do think that someone who has access to nuclear codes should have to pass a thorough psych eval.
    Report Reply
  • lyndausvilyndausvi mod
    First Anniversary First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    kimmiinthemitten said:
    sparklepants41 said:
    lyndausvi said:
    For the most part I do not understand why medical needs to be disclosed.   Although it would be a waste of resources to elect someone with a known terminal illness that would prevent them from serving their 4 years.  I would hope a candidate would disclose such a thing.   

    That said, I'm on the fence over mental disorders though.  I'm not sure I would want someone who is say bi-polar, to be the holder of the codes that could start a nuclear war.       Yes, on their meds people who are bi-polar can function just fine.  However, I've known quite a few people who have stop taking their meds.  It's a viscous cycle, not sure I want the president to be on that cycle.  I'm kind-of torn.

    I do not get why taxes need to be released.   The IRS is a big brother of sorts.  If  a candidate isn't filing we would know.    The details of how much they make, paid in taxes or gave to charity is irrelevant to me.    Knowing they are filing is good enough for me.

    Definitely in favor of releasing tax returns. And I'm on the fence about medical records.

    Re; the bolded, I agree with you Lynda. I do think that someone who has access to nuclear codes should have to pass a thorough psych eval.
    I don't know, I suspect a lot of them would be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder!
    I know right?  It's that pretty much a requirement, no?     

    It's such a touchy subject that I would err on privacy.   At the same time I wouldn't be comfortable with a president who has spent time in psych wards and/or had tried suicide.    When things get tough I don't want a president who has a history of breakdowns.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
    Report Reply
  • debbeaudebbeau member
    5 Love Its Name Dropper First Comment First Answer
    Medical records no but I want to make sure someone running for president is paying their required taxes. We do!
    Report Reply
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    southernbelle0915 said:
    Medical records, no. At most, a statement from a doctor on whether they are in good enough shape to serve their term. But realistically, I don't think that will become a precedent. That's why people need to pay attention to the VP. 

    Taxes, yes. Every candidate for the last 40 years has done this. But Trump does seem to think he's a super speshul snowflake. Really, I think he's hiding behind his "buck the establishment traditions" to skirt around this. I'd bet my salary that 1) he's not as rich as he says he is and 2) he has hired "really really great people, I mean terrific people" to help him find all kinds of loopholes. 
    LOL, and believe me I don't support the guy, but the fact that there ARE loopholes is the problem with this country. 
    I don't care if every candidate since Nixon has released them. If the IRS is doing their job, then the IRS should be able to say "We've never had to investigate x candidate." 
    The fact that people don't even trust the IRS enough for the court of public opinion is a very large problem. 
    ________________________________


    Report Reply
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    thisismynickname said:
    southernbelle0915 said:
    Medical records, no. At most, a statement from a doctor on whether they are in good enough shape to serve their term. But realistically, I don't think that will become a precedent. That's why people need to pay attention to the VP. 

    Taxes, yes. Every candidate for the last 40 years has done this. But Trump does seem to think he's a super speshul snowflake. Really, I think he's hiding behind his "buck the establishment traditions" to skirt around this. I'd bet my salary that 1) he's not as rich as he says he is and 2) he has hired "really really great people, I mean terrific people" to help him find all kinds of loopholes. 
    LOL, and believe me I don't support the guy, but the fact that there ARE loopholes is the problem with this country. 
    I don't care if every candidate since Nixon has released them. If the IRS is doing their job, then the IRS should be able to say "We've never had to investigate x candidate." 
    The fact that people don't even trust the IRS enough for the court of public opinion is a very large problem. 
    Oh, I'm interested in much more than whether they have committed tax fraud. 
    Report Reply
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    STARMOON44 said:
    thisismynickname said:
    southernbelle0915 said:
    Medical records, no. At most, a statement from a doctor on whether they are in good enough shape to serve their term. But realistically, I don't think that will become a precedent. That's why people need to pay attention to the VP. 

    Taxes, yes. Every candidate for the last 40 years has done this. But Trump does seem to think he's a super speshul snowflake. Really, I think he's hiding behind his "buck the establishment traditions" to skirt around this. I'd bet my salary that 1) he's not as rich as he says he is and 2) he has hired "really really great people, I mean terrific people" to help him find all kinds of loopholes. 
    LOL, and believe me I don't support the guy, but the fact that there ARE loopholes is the problem with this country. 
    I don't care if every candidate since Nixon has released them. If the IRS is doing their job, then the IRS should be able to say "We've never had to investigate x candidate." 
    The fact that people don't even trust the IRS enough for the court of public opinion is a very large problem. 
    Oh, I'm interested in much more than whether they have committed tax fraud. 
    Right. And would the public magically figure that out when the IRS didn't? Doubtful. 

    A lot of stuff tends to come out over the news anyway. Like, Hilary is pushing a free college agenda but (to generalize) the Clintons have accepted millions from a for-profit education company. I pick on this platform because I work in higher ed, and that doesn't show any strength of conviction for me. I didn't need to see her tax returns to hear about that hypocrisy. 
    ________________________________


    Report Reply
  • charlotte989875charlotte989875 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    thisismynickname said:
    STARMOON44 said:
    thisismynickname said:
    southernbelle0915 said:
    Medical records, no. At most, a statement from a doctor on whether they are in good enough shape to serve their term. But realistically, I don't think that will become a precedent. That's why people need to pay attention to the VP. 

    Taxes, yes. Every candidate for the last 40 years has done this. But Trump does seem to think he's a super speshul snowflake. Really, I think he's hiding behind his "buck the establishment traditions" to skirt around this. I'd bet my salary that 1) he's not as rich as he says he is and 2) he has hired "really really great people, I mean terrific people" to help him find all kinds of loopholes. 
    LOL, and believe me I don't support the guy, but the fact that there ARE loopholes is the problem with this country. 
    I don't care if every candidate since Nixon has released them. If the IRS is doing their job, then the IRS should be able to say "We've never had to investigate x candidate." 
    The fact that people don't even trust the IRS enough for the court of public opinion is a very large problem. 
    Oh, I'm interested in much more than whether they have committed tax fraud. 
    Right. And would the public magically figure that out when the IRS didn't? Doubtful. 

    A lot of stuff tends to come out over the news anyway. Like, Hilary is pushing a free college agenda but (to generalize) the Clintons have accepted millions from a for-profit education company. I pick on this platform because I work in higher ed, and that doesn't show any strength of conviction for me. I didn't need to see her tax returns to hear about that hypocrisy. 
    But it's not just legalities. The IRS doesn't care if a candidate sits on a Board and collects a stipend, or is trustee of a company or organization. But the public might care if a particular candidate is a board of an organization that promotes issues they find objectionable. 
    Report Reply
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    thisismynickname said:
    STARMOON44 said:
    thisismynickname said:
    southernbelle0915 said:
    Medical records, no. At most, a statement from a doctor on whether they are in good enough shape to serve their term. But realistically, I don't think that will become a precedent. That's why people need to pay attention to the VP. 

    Taxes, yes. Every candidate for the last 40 years has done this. But Trump does seem to think he's a super speshul snowflake. Really, I think he's hiding behind his "buck the establishment traditions" to skirt around this. I'd bet my salary that 1) he's not as rich as he says he is and 2) he has hired "really really great people, I mean terrific people" to help him find all kinds of loopholes. 
    LOL, and believe me I don't support the guy, but the fact that there ARE loopholes is the problem with this country. 
    I don't care if every candidate since Nixon has released them. If the IRS is doing their job, then the IRS should be able to say "We've never had to investigate x candidate." 
    The fact that people don't even trust the IRS enough for the court of public opinion is a very large problem. 
    Oh, I'm interested in much more than whether they have committed tax fraud. 
    Right. And would the public magically figure that out when the IRS didn't? Doubtful. 

    A lot of stuff tends to come out over the news anyway. Like, Hilary is pushing a free college agenda but (to generalize) the Clintons have accepted millions from a for-profit education company. I pick on this platform because I work in higher ed, and that doesn't show any strength of conviction for me. I didn't need to see her tax returns to hear about that hypocrisy. 
    Yes. Obviously. The IRS just cares whether you have paid the taxes you owe. I care about what your income was, where it came from, whether you actually give to charity. All things the IRS doesn't care about at all the a tax lawyer and an accountant could analyze in a day. 
    Report Reply
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    But to Charlette and Starmoon- that information comes out in the news anyway. By the time the candidates solidify their plans to run for office, they've generally been in the public eye long enough that you know the major boards they sit on. Plus, if they're wealthy, so many wealthy give extensively to charities in part to lower their taxable income. The tax return doesn't say WHERE the money went to, just how much. The news and Google can figure out where the money went. 

    Is information about where the income came from going to change your vote, or just give you fodder to hate the opponent even more?
    ________________________________


    Report Reply
  • charlotte989875charlotte989875 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    thisismynickname said:
    But to Charlette and Starmoon- that information comes out in the news anyway. By the time the candidates solidify their plans to run for office, they've generally been in the public eye long enough that you know the major boards they sit on. Plus, if they're wealthy, so many wealthy give extensively to charities in part to lower their taxable income. The tax return doesn't say WHERE the money went to, just how much. The news and Google can figure out where the money went. 

    Is information about where the income came from going to change your vote, or just give you fodder to hate the opponent even more?
    I disagree that this information would just come out anyways. Depending on the rules/policies of the company/organization/corporation they don't always need to disclose who they are paying what for sitting on a board, serving as a consultant, or if they are paying someone to give a speech or attend an event. I think this is information that is valuable to the public to decide whether the candidate is associated with organizations that are aligned (or not) with their beliefs. Why shouldn't voters know where candidates are getting money from, or what organizations are paying them? 

    I err on the side of transparency. The more information that is public, the more informed voters can choose to be about who they vote for. The more we know about the process of elections and government, the better. 
    Report Reply
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited September 2016
    thisismynickname said:
    But to Charlette and Starmoon- that information comes out in the news anyway. By the time the candidates solidify their plans to run for office, they've generally been in the public eye long enough that you know the major boards they sit on. Plus, if they're wealthy, so many wealthy give extensively to charities in part to lower their taxable income. The tax return doesn't say WHERE the money went to, just how much. The news and Google can figure out where the money went. 

    Is information about where the income came from going to change your vote, or just give you fodder to hate the opponent even more?
    No, it doesn't. Information about what they actually reported on their taxes only comes out of they make their tax returns public. 

    As to your second argument, I think it's ridiculous. Nothing is changing my vote. Hillary Clinton could die. The democrats could nominate a cat. There is no way in hell in voting republican. Doesn't mean I don't want to be informed. 
    Report Reply
  • thisismynickname2thisismynickname2 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    charlotte989875 said:
    thisismynickname said:
    But to Charlette and Starmoon- that information comes out in the news anyway. By the time the candidates solidify their plans to run for office, they've generally been in the public eye long enough that you know the major boards they sit on. Plus, if they're wealthy, so many wealthy give extensively to charities in part to lower their taxable income. The tax return doesn't say WHERE the money went to, just how much. The news and Google can figure out where the money went. 

    Is information about where the income came from going to change your vote, or just give you fodder to hate the opponent even more?
    I disagree that this information would just come out anyways. Depending on the rules/policies of the company/organization/corporation they don't always need to disclose who they are paying what for sitting on a board, serving as a consultant, or if they are paying someone to give a speech or attend an event. I think this is information that is valuable to the public to decide whether the candidate is associated with organizations that are aligned (or not) with their beliefs. Why shouldn't voters know where candidates are getting money from, or what organizations are paying them? 

    I err on the side of transparency. The more information that is public, the more informed voters can choose to be about who they vote for. The more we know about the process of elections and government, the better. 
    But unless I'm taking crazy pills, that information is not on the tax returns. You get income and losses, dividends, etc., but not what any of the income was for. 
    Even one of Obama's early tax returns says "miscellaneous charity" for about a thousand bucks. We don't get the receipts to know which charities those were. 

    http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
    ________________________________


    Report Reply
  • vikinganna87vikinganna87 member
    First Anniversary First Answer 5 Love Its First Comment
    I don't think medical or tax records need to be released. I do, however, think any information about back taxes or litigation against the candidate or candidate's organization(s) should be made public.  On the litigation piece, is that public information already? Is it a current requirement for candidates?

    As for physical and mental health, it's a  slippery slope. Of course you want your president to be fit and able, but at which point do you say that a mental or physical impairment is substantial enough to prevent someone from adequately doing a good job?  I agree that stability is required for the demands of the job, but if a president has a mental illness and has demonstrated ability to work well under pressure in spite/because of it, I don't see a problem. In fact, I tend to find people who've suffered setbacks, whether related to their own health or not, to be more compassionate and empathetic, qualities I value in a president.

    Aside from Donald Trump's lack of even temperament, what bothers me most about both candidates is not necessarily their age but the fact that they represent a bygone era.  I don't find either of them forward-thinking or inspiring.  I plan on voting for Hillary Clinton, but to me she represents a significant step backward from Obama.  I recognize the historical significance of a female president, but that doesn't excite me as much as it should.  I'm hoping she surprises me and proves me wrong.
    Report Reply
  • charlotte989875charlotte989875 member
    First Anniversary First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its
    thisismynickname said:
    charlotte989875 said:
    thisismynickname said:
    But to Charlette and Starmoon- that information comes out in the news anyway. By the time the candidates solidify their plans to run for office, they've generally been in the public eye long enough that you know the major boards they sit on. Plus, if they're wealthy, so many wealthy give extensively to charities in part to lower their taxable income. The tax return doesn't say WHERE the money went to, just how much. The news and Google can figure out where the money went. 

    Is information about where the income came from going to change your vote, or just give you fodder to hate the opponent even more?
    I disagree that this information would just come out anyways. Depending on the rules/policies of the company/organization/corporation they don't always need to disclose who they are paying what for sitting on a board, serving as a consultant, or if they are paying someone to give a speech or attend an event. I think this is information that is valuable to the public to decide whether the candidate is associated with organizations that are aligned (or not) with their beliefs. Why shouldn't voters know where candidates are getting money from, or what organizations are paying them? 

    I err on the side of transparency. The more information that is public, the more informed voters can choose to be about who they vote for. The more we know about the process of elections and government, the better. 
    But unless I'm taking crazy pills, that information is not on the tax returns. You get income and losses, dividends, etc., but not what any of the income was for. 
    Even one of Obama's early tax returns says "miscellaneous charity" for about a thousand bucks. We don't get the receipts to know which charities those were. 

    http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns
    I wouldn't say you're taking crazy bills, but you can see the different income sources and cash contributions in the supplement forms. Do most people look these up? Probably not, but I do think this is important information to know about a given candidate if that is important to you. 
    Report Reply
  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Name Dropper
    In a perfect world candidates would be completely transparent, I don't care too much about medical records, I guess I care a little depending on the VP, I care more about paid speeches, I'd like to know why HRC is so protective about its contents, I would hope it's clean but these are speeches to corporations who screw all of us over. They control practically everything, I'd like to know what politicians are telling them since it affects every aspect of our lives.

    The tax records are also important, especially since trump has been lying about his for so long. And yet his supporters accept that. The IRS says there's no reason why he can't release them. So he's either not paying his fair share or he's not as rich as he says he is. 
    So I simply want transparency, these people influence what happens to us when we get sick, they influence how our children learn, even the water we drink. Unlike a regular job where these things are a breach of privacy, this job position affects everyone.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    Report Reply
  • STARMOON44STARMOON44 member
    First Comment First Answer 5 Love Its Name Dropper
    They're telling them rah rah economy women diversity supporting growth blah blah boring. Says everyone I know who's been. 
    Report Reply
  • kylexokylexo member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Name Dropper
    and Trump will now not be releasing his medical records on Dr. Oz (you know, the most serious doctor in the country). maybe those numbers weren't as good as he'd expected them to be?
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards