Trump has entered the Querencia Phase of his presidency

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3141 - 3160 of total 3407 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 13, 2018 - 08:16pm PT
Yeah, yeah, I'm hearing the predictable arguments, summed up by the perpetual, "Obama didn't do it; he inherited it. It's ALL the Republicans' fault."

Obama inherited two wars, the Great Recession and Bush's tax cuts- that predominantly benefited the wealthy.

Do you even want to get started on all of Obama's campaign promises, particularly regarding wars and the military, that he didn't even start to fulfill? And he had a party-line Congress, for his first two years. Oh, yes, he didn't QUITE have a filibuster-proof Senate (a few votes shy), but you're gonna tell me that he couldn't get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan within two years?

He promised to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet here we are. HE was the commander in chief, yet he kept signing new funding legislation from HIS Congress for two years, and then kept signing new funding legislation sent to his desk by a Republican Congress.

He promised to NEVER raise taxes on the middle class, yet Obamacare passed muster with the SCOTUS when his lawyers CHANGED their tune and started calling it a "tax," which was by his own admission a massive new TAX on the middle class. And don't even get me started on the fact that his strategists were laughing about how stupid the American public is, while they handed us to the INSURANCE COMPANIES on a silver platter.

As I said, you want welfare for the poor, but you don't want job-CREATING tax breaks for companies that do create jobs that could thereby help fewer people BE poor. What you guys don't get about Trump's corporate tax plan is that it LEVELED the playing field.

If you look at what the corporate tax rates were prior to this year, you'll quickly see HOW protectionistic they were to mega-corps. Mega-corps have NEVER been paying over 20%, while the VAST majority of small to medium sized businesses trying to compete with these mega-corps were hit with tax rates of 34% to 39%. The plain tax rates don't even start to tell the whole story, either. Mega-corps enjoyed deductions not available to small to medium size businesses, such as a "reinvestment" deduction that could shield up to 20% of REVENUE from being counted as "revenue" when it was simply not paid out in dividends (profits) but instead "reinvested" (where "reinvestment" could count as salaries, etc.).

You can't compete heads-up with a mega-corp when you're paying TWICE the tax rate that they are! Just look at where the highest rates hit. And that was the point to these scaled tax rates: Protectionism. Keeping the small to medium sized businesses from ever getting over the outrageous tax threshold to becoming "large."

So, the new corporate tax code gave nothing new to mega-corps. They ALREADY paid the lower rate and enjoyed other benefits not available to small to medium sized business. What the new code did was put such tax rates into the hands of the job-creating level of companies, small to medium sized businesses, by enabling them to pay the same rate as mega-corps. This was no "tax break for mega-corps," as is to IGNORANTLY trumpeted. This was a tax break for small to medium size companies that ARE the job creators in this nation.

So, yeah, I would definitely prefer to kick the debt can down the road if it creates jobs, improves the GDP, and thereby helps to ultimately keep the debt within range of GDP. That's not just giving money away. That's investing in future GDP.

And even the way we're talking about it reveals how twisted the dialog has become. "The government" HAS nothing to give away. The only money it can "give" is money it TAKES.

YOU equate TAKEN money with "money the government has to give away," as if "the government" and the people it gives money to are entitled to it!

By stark contrast, a tax reduction on job-creating companies (who are, in fact, already creating new jobs as a result, as both the stats and I personally attest!), is "the government" not TAKING as much. If there's less to give away, so be it! NOBODY is entitled to free money. We've all "just accepted it" because supposedly "nobody should suffer" in this "great nation." But in THIS nation, nobody is really suffering. Sorry to burst your bubble, but even the "poor" in this nation have it amazingly, astoundingly good!

I won't abide conflating GIVING less with TAKING less, as though they are talking about the same sort of thing. Obama TOOK MORE and gave more. Period. If Trump TAKES less, more power to him. It falls to Congress to cut spending, giving less, and they had better!

I'm with you guys insofar as the cuts should begin with the military. But government should TAKE less, SPEND less, and GIVE AWAY far less (to individuals and to corporations).

Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that the person we hire next is going to curse Trump's tax plan that made that job possible.
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Jun 13, 2018 - 08:30pm PT
A couple of points of interest relating to some of the above commnets

1) Sub "S" corporations do not pay income tax, virtually all income net of expenses is dispersed to the shareholders by the end of the year as mostly ordinary taxable income

therefore, the Republican tax cuts do not really effect S corporations, of which I have been involved with seven in the past 35 years, it is the "C" corps that have had their Federal tax rates reduced from 35 to 21%

because C corps are, mostly, large to very large corporations it is they who are truly benefitting from the tax cuts, and make no mistake, study and study is showing that those donor pay back wonderful, fast, tax cuts are resulting in using that money to buy more shares of their own corporations back and NOT resulting, by and large, in rank and file employees getting significant raises in income, or in any mass increase in hiring new employees- anyone who understands basic economics knows it is demand in the marketplace that drives new hires

but don't take my work, google search on Trump tax cuts share buybacks
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Jun 13, 2018 - 08:37pm PT
And he had a party-line Congress, for his first two years.

I am not going to bother correcting all the factual errors (lies) in Madbolter's above post

I will just quickly point out that President Obama never, ever, in his entire 8 years had a Democratic majority in both houses of congress sufficient to overcome Republican filibusters, and in fact it was only in a 28 day period that the two Independent Senators joined the Democrats to overcome the Republicans to pass the ACA and the Lilly Fair Pay Act, and that was only with bringing in a dying Ted Kennedy in a wheelchair onto the Senate floor for the deciding votes

but carry on, never bothering to get the truth, the facts correct prior to opining
that would require too much intellectual credibility and look it up yourself curiosity

good night all
Fritz

Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
Jun 13, 2018 - 08:44pm PT
MB1! I do regret your not refuting my post on the Republican tax cuts for the rich.

I'll give you another chance:

Jun 13, 2018 - 07:10pm PT
Splater! I agree with your thoughts on the Republican's tax cut.

And!

MB1! I appreciate the Republican tax cuts have been good for your small corporation & you. You lower yourself by touting their benefits to the rich. Please, let me tell you why you have become a Trumpian shill for the Republican's disasterous tax cut.

From Splatter:

Trump is no different than the Bush tax cuts for the rich. **Massive tax cuts, during a time of healthy economy, financed by deficit spending will eventually collapse the economy.
**


I'm not MB1's concept of a poor & needy liberal, but anyone, who is not blinded by greed, can understand that the Republican's passed their tax cut to benefit their donors.

From that noted liberal publication (jest kidding) International Business Times:



Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that “the financial contributions will stop” if tax reform fails.

New York Rep. Chris Collins told reporters on Tuesday that his donors were “basically saying, ‘Get it done or don't ever call me again.’”

A review of these legislators’ campaign finance records shows which kinds of donors they appear to be scared of irritating. Both Graham and Collins are dependent on donors who can contribute large sums to their campaigns — **those who also are likely to gain from the GOP tax cut plan, which heavily favors the wealthy and large corporations — and take in relatively few small contributions.

** According to the Federal Elections Commission data analyzed by International Business Times, only 1.4 percent of the money this year from individual donors to Graham — a member of the Senate Budget Committee — came in the form of “small donations,” or contributions of $200 or less. The vast majority (70 percent) came from donations of $2,000 or more.

Among the top corporations that have donated to Graham’s campaigns from 2013 to the present are several that are sponsoring a “Tax Prom” event next week in hopes of the GOP passing a tax reform bill that will drastically cut their corporate tax rates from 35 percent down to 20 percent.

PACs and individuals associated with companies such as Tax Prom sponsors Altria, Boeing, ExxonMobil, and Raytheon have lavished Graham with donations over the past five years. Of Graham’s donor industries, the securities and investment industry ($814,000 since 2013) is second only to lawyers and law firms, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

**The wealthy will also benefit from income tax cuts; the latest Tax Policy Center analysis of the regressive tax plan concluded that by 2027, those in the top 0.1 percent of Americans in terms of income will see an average tax cut of over $278,000, while those in the bottom 20 percent will get a tax cut of only $10.

The New York Times estimates that nearly half of middle-class families would end up paying more in taxes in 2026 as a result of the plan.
**
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/behind-tax-cut-records-reveal-donors-republicans-fear-2612982

Contractor

Boulder climber
CA
Jun 13, 2018 - 09:02pm PT
Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that the person we hire next is going to curse Trump's tax plan that made that job possible.
Ironic thing, me being a liberal- I don't need the governments help to be a jobs creator.

zBrown

Ice climber
Jun 13, 2018 - 09:18pm PT


Via Fox News

Pennsylvania driver allegedly defecates on another man in road rage incident
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2018 - 09:46pm PT
There is no lower limit to Trump's childish behavior.

Trump destroys presidential documents on a regular basis, and his White House staff has to tape the shredded papers back together to comply with Federal records keeping laws. Like a spoiled child in control of his nannies, Trump refuses to abide by the rules, and forces others to compensate for his misbehavior.

The White House staffers who reassemble and repair Trump's torn-up documents earn roughly $65,000 per year, paid by taxpayers.


http://time.com/5308542/trump-presidential-records-nixon/





Michael Cohen's legal team has abandoned him, which probably indicates that they have no reasonable hope of defending him. Cohen, facing a long prison sentence, will probably show Trump the same degree of loyalty that Trump is showing him: NONE.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-attorneys-expected-to-quit-his-case-1528903379

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/06/13/cohen-flips-and-will-cooperate-with-mueller-after-lawyers-quit.html








Here is a valid and relevant question that Trump and his lawyers should be pondering:

If Trump is indicted and convicted for crimes, what sort of Secret Service protection would he receive while in prison?



Trump's alleged power to pardon himself is illusory. If a sitting president had that sort of power, Nixon and Clinton would have both wielded it. Similarly, Trump's professed immunity from subpoenas and indictments would have been used by Nixon and Clinton if such powers actually existed. Nixon and Clinton were both successfully subpoenaed by investigators, although Clinton agreed to voluntarily testify if the subpoena was withdrawn as a formality. Nixon fought the law, and the law won. Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski obtained the Oval Office tapes, and they became the centerpiece of the fall of Nixon.

Trump might be prosecuted at the State level, which would cleanly bypass Trump's delusional and imaginary claims of legal invincibility at the Federal level. Mike Pence would not have any power to pardon Trump for crimes committed at the State level.



Going down fast and hard, crying all the way.

ground chuck

Ice climber
Olympia
Jun 13, 2018 - 10:46pm PT
Yeah I can't see a Jewish guy protecting a German with bad traits,

so Cohen is gonna flip on rump to save his own rump from Bubba, which means rump's rump roast is well done, the Picadors are sharpening their blades for the final take down,

so now that rump is cooked, how are we gonna get rid of Pence? did you see him piss off the Southern Baptist's by talking up how good his adulterous, greedy, prideful, lying boss is?

T-rump should have defected to Korea and got on that train to Siberia, where all his buddies are hanging out,
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 14, 2018 - 08:24am PT
therefore, the Republican tax cuts do not really effect S corporations, of which I have been involved with seven in the past 35 years, it is the "C" corps that have had their Federal tax rates reduced from 35 to 21%

As usual, you are missing the point. There are MANY benefits to being a C-corp, yet the tax schedule was explicitly designed TO keep smaller companies from becoming C-corps and enjoying those benefits, such as the "reinvestment" benefit.

The change in tax law has made C-corp accessible to small companies for the first time, and MANY of us are taking advantage of that.

The new tax code DOES level the tax code for the first time, and it DOES make C-corp accessible to the "little guy" for the first time.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 14, 2018 - 08:31am PT
I am not going to bother correcting all the factual errors (lies) in Madbolter's above post

You've got nothing to correct.

I explicitly stated that for two years Obama had a not-quite filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and that is FACT. 57 Senators is a majority that no Republican President has enjoyed in (most of) our lifetimes.

I will just quickly point out that President Obama never, ever, in his entire 8 years had a Democratic majority in both houses of congress sufficient to overcome Republican filibusters

Wait. That's what I said. I thought that you were "correcting" me!

For his first two years, Obama had a huge House majority and the largest Senate majority in (most of) our lifetimes.

But you guys moan and snivel that "it was the Republicans" just because poor, poor Obama didn't have a filibuster-proof Senate.

It's mighty hard to have sympathy for the huge majorities he DID have!

but carry on, never bothering to get the truth, the facts correct prior to opining
that would require too much intellectual credibility and look it up yourself curiosity

It is literally amazing to me that some libs here are SO blind that they are emotionally compelled to "correct" somebody that doesn't agree with them--even when that "correction" is LITERALLY saying exactly the same thing they are "correcting."

Look to your echo-chamber mind, Norton. Something in those deep, dark processes itself needs some serious correction.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jun 14, 2018 - 08:40am PT
but anyone, who is not blinded by greed, can understand that the Republican's passed their tax cut to benefit their donors.

Well, since you're going to descend to loaded, pejorative language like "greed," I'll play along.

Anybody not motivated by a twisted Robin Hood complex can understand that BOTH parties (including the one that corporate shill, Hillary represented) are in bed with mega-corps and wealthy donors.

If you think that the Democrats have the interests of the little guy in mind, well, you have really drunk the Kool-Aid. And the old economic saw really hums in this context: Steal from Peter to pay Paul, and you'll always have the support of Paul.

The Democrat party is determined to create a nation of Pauls, and you Robin Hoods think that they have the high moral ground to do so.

Meanwhile, BOTH parties cater to mega-corps and the MIC.

I say, end ALL the theft! NO more subsidies to mega-corps, the MIC (cut the military in half), OR to the "poor" in this nation.

But noooo. You guys are determined to keep STEALING and playing Robin Hood, and you justify it by calling the middle class "blinded by greed." It's really outrageous. We're just trying to get by! Meanwhile, I watch people in Walmart paying for their (junk) food with WIC and then whipping out a credit card to buy a $1,000 Samsung TV.

That's not an "isolated abuse." That's the REALITY of the "poor" in this nation. You are determined to have a nation of Pauls.

You've got the "greed" label attached to entirely the wrong people. And you just want to be in control of the stealing, not actually end it.

Which is why the partisan cluster-fornication will continue.

I'm out. Got better things to do for awhile.
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Jun 14, 2018 - 09:38am PT
NY Attorney Sues Trump, Family And Foundation For Charity Self-Dealing

The lawsuit also accuses defendants of making expenditures to influence the outcome of an election Attorney general accuses defendants of self-dealing, wasting charitable assets, or violating US Tax law. It seeks restitution of $2.8 million, penalties against the president, a ban on donald trump serving as an officer of a charity, and a declaration that the foundation conducted business in a 'persistently illegal manner' Lawsuit filed in the new york state supreme court in Ma

“As our investigation reveals, the Trump Foundation was little more than a checkbook for payments from Mr. Trump or his businesses to nonprofits, regardless of their purpose or legality,” said Attorney General Underwood. “This is not how private foundations should function and my office intends to hold the Foundation and its directors accountable for its misuse of charitable assets.”
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Jun 14, 2018 - 09:44am PT
Everyday norton??

Don't you have a better way to start your day?

Have fun today. Do something you enjoy. Find peace.
MGuzzy

Trad climber
Orangevale
Jun 14, 2018 - 10:01am PT
Yup.. I always said it will be the Trump organizations gray accounting practices that will be his undoing.. another pea falls from the pod.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trump-foundation/new-york-sues-trump-his-foundation-over-illegal-self-dealing-idUSKBN1JA26G
Norton

climber
The Wastelands
Jun 14, 2018 - 10:06am PT
The wealthy will also benefit from income tax cuts; the latest Tax Policy Center analysis of the regressive tax plan concluded that by 2027, those in the top 0.1 percent of Americans in terms of income will see an average tax cut of over $278,000, while those in the bottom 20 percent will get a tax cut of only $10.

The New York Times estimates that nearly half of middle-class families would end up paying more in taxes in 2026 as a result of the plan.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 14, 2018 - 10:29am PT
As I said, you want welfare for the poor, but you don't want job-CREATING tax breaks for companies that do create jobs that could thereby help fewer people BE poor. What you guys don't get about Trump's corporate tax plan is that it LEVELED the playing field.

While I agree with quite a bit of your post, MB1, this I can't go along with. In my lifetime, IIRC, tax cuts have always led to recession.
Fritz

Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
Jun 14, 2018 - 11:35am PT
Mb1! Per your less than satisfactory reply to my post, where you start slapping your imaginary Liberal opponents again:

I did say this:
but anyone, who is not blinded by greed, can understand that the Republican's passed their tax cut to benefit their donors.

And I then proved my point, with quotes from two top Republican congressmen & some statistics from the International Business Times.

I also quoted these statements & gave the source:

The wealthy will also benefit from income tax cuts; the latest Tax Policy Center analysis of the regressive tax plan concluded that by 2027, those in the top 0.1 percent of Americans in terms of income will see an average tax cut of over $278,000, while those in the bottom 20 percent will get a tax cut of only $10.

The New York Times estimates that nearly half of middle-class families would end up paying more in taxes in 2026 as a result of the plan.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/behind-tax-cut-records-reveal-donors-republicans-fear-2612982

And you reply with yet another schist attack on Liberals. I thought you were better than that, but I'll think again.

I thought Republicans believe Greed is good? Why hang another 1.73 Trillion dollars ($5,674.00 per person) of debt on America with that self-serving tax bill otherwise? No Democrats voted for that tax handout for the rich & corporations.

MB1 responded!

Well, since you're going to descend to loaded, pejorative language like "greed," I'll play along.

Anybody not motivated by a twisted Robin Hood complex can understand that BOTH parties (including the one that corporate shill, Hillary represented) are in bed with mega-corps and wealthy donors.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 14, 2018 - 12:09pm PT
Credit: dirtbag


Fuking idiot.
Tom

Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2018 - 12:10pm PT
For anyone who still believes the Mueller investigation is a "baseless witch hunt", the New York Attorney General's lawsuit today comes after a 20-month investigation. The investigation into the Trump family's sham charity was conducted quietly, without releasing information to the public. Trump never claimed it was a partisan witch hunt because it was off his radar. Trump will now pound the table, and shriek that it's a witch hunt.


Trump has no legal precedent for claiming immunity from the New York civil lawsuit. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that Bill Clinton had no such immunity in a civil case arising from his pre-presidential actions. Trump's fraudulent charity operated for about a decade, well before he became president.


How do you like Trump?

Well done.





Trump's lawyers may claim that the lawsuit is so complex and time-consuming, that the President should be excused from it, in the interest of being able to do his job. In effect, that would mean that the bigger your crime, the more relief from prosecution you deserve. Another way to put it is that Trump's lawyers will probably argue that he is too big to fail.



Trumpty-Dumpty called for a wall.
Trumpty-Dumpty had a great fall.
All of his lieyers and all of his lies
Couldn't make Trumpty immunized.









VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Will the IRS release Trump's tax returns to prosecutors? Will they make them public, as part of their public prosecution for tax fraud? His Three Stooges children have also been named in the complaint. If Ivanka and Jared filed joint returns, his financial details will become public, too.


Very soon, Trump will be on Twitter and TV, writhing and churning like a lunatic in a straitjacket.

He will be bewailing and bemoaning about how unfair it is, for his children to be dragged into the Witch Hunt. The same argument, applied to John Gotti Jr. and Bill Bonnano, would not stand for a second. Why should Trump's criminal children be given a pass, when the sons of mafia mob bosses were not?


And don't forget Trump's famous "Red Line" for Mueller to not cross: investigating his personal finances.

Trump will suffer a synapse collapse on a grand scale. His mind will lock up, and his words and actions will be controlled by low-level neurons in the brain stem.


Synapse Collapse = climbing related
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Jun 14, 2018 - 12:40pm PT
so Jeff "Keebler Elf" Sessions is quoting scriptures to justify breaking families up

Romans 13 New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Will be interesting to see how Trump and family follow this wisdom
Messages 3141 - 3160 of total 3407 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews