The N.Y. Times revealed Trump lost almost $1B and therefore allegedly legally avoided taxes for an astounding number of years. (He has since avoided paying taxes after that as well.)
The presumption is that Trump's accountant properly used all available tax laws to avoid taxes, in spite of the Alternative Minimum Tax that is supposed to guarantee the wealthy will pay SOME taxes. (The ATM was initially enacted to prevent EXACTLY this type of legal way of avoiding taxes.) This means, of course, Trump did nothing wrong or even unethical; in fact, he is exactly like, even one of, the famous 47% who didn't pay taxes that the Right makes so much fun of and call terrible names.
I assert that the special laws for the rich to allow them not to pay taxes is a form of welfare, since he didn't earn it, he was just given it.
So, why doesn't that make him one of the biggest Welfare Queens of all time?
Why are Trump's followers on the Right going to vote for someone who refuses to pay taxes?
I know. He's such an entitled leech. I thought conservatives despise entitled leeches.
After such losses, how does manage to keep that private jet? I should be so misfortunate...
Let's face it you wrote this "before " you saw the Clintons taxes? Before you understood the Clinton Foundation tax loops? Before you ever filed a long form tax standard? Before you ever invested in real estate ?
Look up how the Hilary Campaign donated to the Clinton foundation !
How would you explain that donation ?
Trump also used multiple business bankruptcies as a routine "business strategy," not caring how he wreaked havoc on his suppliers (including small business owners) as long as he protected himself. And there was at least one property in NY that he acquired to renovate by using government incentives or subsidies.
When people refer to him as a great businessman, I laugh. Even his ghostwriter for "The Art of the Deal" calls him crazy and says his bragging is not truth. Here's another good article about "The Donald" and his "deals"--https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-01-27/donald-trump-s-track-record-on-deals
Considering that he started his career with a million-dollar handout from his father (back when a million was a lot more than it is today) and later inherited more, used numerous shady business practices (acting more like a con man than an astute business manager), was an arrogant jerk on that ridiculous "reality" TV show, and is currently being sued--only one of many lawsuits against Trump--for his obviously fraudulent Trump "University," I certainly don't see him as having the ability to do anything positive for the U.S. Quite the contrary. Listening to him talk in generalities and never espousing any type of feasible plan, it's obvious he is not presidential in ability or manner. If elected, he would be impeached within the first year because he can't keep his mouth shut or stop insulting people. That wouldn't go over well with leaders of other nations, would it?
I think Trump's narcissistic ego has fed off the adulation of his followers (even as he insulted their intelligence), but I also believe he only wished to promote the Trump brand. He actually began making noises about running for president years ago. The campaign sort of snowballed above his expectations, and--again--his ego wouldn't let him back down. He would be a disaster in the White House. Knowing his background with the Clintons, it is tempting to believe the theory that he's merely doing a bait-and-switch gig for Clinton. If so, he will self-destruct before the general election. If his massive ego won't let him go through with that, he will undoubtedly regret it if elected and being forced to show the world that "the emperor has no clothes." (And that's not even considering Hillary's wrath, with the Clinton Mafia behind her.)
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is corrupt, untrustworthy, driven by greed, dangerous to anyone who defies her, and wants to start World War III by attacking Assad's government forces in Syria. Just what we need--Putin training warheads on the U.S. due to Hillary wanting more war "business opportunities."
Well, I didn't mean to get carried away, but of course I did! As for me, I've turned my back on the corrupt "establishment" Democratic Party that is wholly corporate-owned. Now in my seventies, I will vote for Jill Stein-- the only ethical presidential candidate with a progressive platform. If she doesn't win, I'm going to beg Justin Trudeau to ple-a-s-e make it easier for non-wealthy retirees to immigrate to Canada!
How many people do YOU know that have zero or negative earnings yet still pay income taxes? When you don't earn anything, the taxes on those (nonexistent) taxes is zero.
If you don't like the loopholes, tell your senators. Who will make more loopholes, because your opinion doesn't matter next to their handlers. Which in turn is why we need Trump in there instead of just another money happy politician.
And why has Trump have zero or negative earnings almost every year since 1995 and many be earlier. His vaunted casino operations lost money EVERY year, some say. Some business genius he is.
Do you know that "...Trump have zero or negative earnings almost every year since 1995 and many be earlier. ?" All that I have read paint those recent claims to be presumptions and possibilities - not proven fact.
It appears that this all started with one year's, 1995, tax documents of a big loss. That was spun with tax accountant's presumptuous extrapolations into "he hasn't paid any Federal income tax for 18 years!"
... at least that's the way I heard it. What makes you so sure he hasn't paid?
Eric Trump told CNN that his Dad pays enormous taxes every year, including federal tax, and that he sees his Dad's taxes. Trump said he will release his taxes (against his attorney's advice), when Hillary Clinton releases the 33,000 emails she deleted (and bleached). Its kind of a chess game those two are playing, definitely its a war game.
It is unfair that small businesses get hit the hardest in taxes, and many are forced out of business. The middle class is shrinking. Workers pay too much tax. We need tax reform...that's the real issue...not Trump's legal taxes. I looked at each of the candidate's Tax Plans and thought about their impacts.
I'm much more curious as to who Trump or Clinton would appoint as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense...
Then Erick is probably lying like his Dad. Did Trump pay SSN and Medicare, no doubt; but all indications is he pays no federal or state income taxes.
Because Trump lies SO MUCH, I can't believe a thing he says without the documents to back it up.
You know as well as I do that saying " he will release his taxes when Hillary Clinton releases the 33,000 emails she deleted (and bleached)" is a very stupid thing to say implying the listeners are dumb. IF the emails are DELETED, how can HRC release them; they don't exist. So that was just another way of Trump saying he is too scared to release his tax returns for public scrutiny (to make sure we aren't electing a Putin operative, lol)
Do we need tax reform? Yes, badly.
Small businesses don't pay anything more than their personal income tax rate, only corporations pay a separate rate, which averages, btw, about 15% effective rate, not the 34% top rate.
Since the vast majority of non-corporate business owners net less than $250,000/yr, they (me) do not even pay the highest personal rate, although they clearly pay more than Trump.
Taxes do not force businesses to close, nor do excessive regulations (I find the regulation of my business non-onerous) except for those who pollute a lot.
Absotutely right about the Sec Def and Sec State.
We are in the greatest speculation time in all of history in the USA.
I believe Trump is being honest, I truly do. All we have is speculation from the opposition and I'm not falling for it.
Absolutely right about the Sec Def and Sec State.
Added: Apple biggest tax avoider in US stashing $215bn offshore
* https://www.rt.com/business/361668-appl … ce-report/
Notice ($ millions) on the chart.
Some are multinational corporations that donated to Hillary Clinton.
How do you reconcile "I believe Trump is being honest, I truly do" with the established fact that at least 70% of statements made by Trump are Demonstrably Pants-on-Fire False, False, or Mostly False; and I am not even counting the True, but Misleading. Hillary is the reverse of that.
e.g., a summary of what can be found on-line- http://hubpages.com/politics/American-P … agerations
As to your charts, which I agree is a real problem, here are some facts about attempts to fix this:
- During the 2012 election season, President Obama promised to end tax deductions for companies that ship jobs overseas. Obama took the first step in addressing this promise with his budget proposal for fiscal year 2014. Mirroring Obama's commitment, the Democratic-controlled Senate included a similar promise to close "international tax loopholes and other incentives that move American jobs overseas” in its 2014 budget. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives' budget had different particulars, but it also included provisions for international tax reform. To resolve the differences, a budget conference was needed. RESULT: Nothing happened due to gridlock (I would say from social programs the GOP want and Ds reject as well as conservative rejection of compromise as a matter of principle -- You would probably say the opposite.)
- There have been similar attempts earlier from Both Parties but fell to gridlock as well.
As to donations, of course they did; many companies like to donate to charitable foundations (but not directly to Hillary Clinton).
" but all indications is he pays no federal or state income taxes. "
What indication is that? That you haven't a clue but like the idea so will promote it?
Because you can carry business losses over the subsequent years if there isn't enough income to cover them. If you don't like the law, get it changed but that he followed it seems insufficient reason to vilify him.
Why people believe Trump is on the side of ordinary people is a mystery to me. As a CEO he's sent manufacturing jobs abroad, avoided paying tax, and is currently involved in litigation for conning his customers. Yet his supporters act as if he is a hero of the people. I really don't get that.
"As a CEO he's sent manufacturing jobs abroad"
As a casino operator and real estate mogul, I have to wonder just what manufacturing jobs you think he has sent abroad? Where are these manufacturing plants belonging to Trump but located overseas?
"avoided paying tax"
How many large businesses can you point to that do NOT have many tax lawyers on board, all doing their best to pay only the taxes required by law and no more? For that matter, how many individual citizens do you know that figure their tax bill to the best of their ability and then throw in another $1,000 or so just to help out?
"and is currently involved in litigation for conning his customers."
And finally, how many big corporations do you know that aren't involved in litigation at any given time? We've become a nation of litigants, very often because we made bad choices and want someone else to pick up the cost.
Trump outsourced the manufacture of various products to at least 12 different countries, including China, the Netherlands, Mexico, India, Turkey, Slovenia, Honduras, Germany, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam and South Korea(1)(2)(3).
The fact that Trump is not the only CEO who can get away with not paying tax, doesn't make it okay. And how does not paying any tax make Trump on the side of ordinary working people?
Trump is not just involved in litigation, he is being sued for fraud. The case has not been decided, but an indictment for fraud from the NY Attorney General's Office, at the very least, raises doubt about whether Trump acted in the interests of his customers, most of whom were ordinary working people. And yes several other Corporations have been involved in litigation for fraud or similar. Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo to name but a few. All those Corporations acted against the interests of their customers, but none of their CEOs are currently running for President. If they were, and people acted like they were for working people, that would be a mystery to me too.
As it is, the fact people believe Trump is on the side of ordinary people, is something I don't understand.
(1) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/donald-t … d=31826791
(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … lete-list/
(3) http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/26/polit … eign-made/
I see. The claim, then, is that because you purchase the ties Donald Trump imports means that he, personally, "outsourced" those jobs to China. I trust that you are able to recognize just how silly that claim is - if you don't want to buy imported goods, don't buy them but don't blame the importer for the loss of jobs.
If I thought you would read and think about it, I would copy and paste the post you are replying to, for blaming Trump for following tax laws is foolish indeed.
No, it isn't "several" corporations that have been involved in litigation: it is every single large corporation in the country. Whether it is for fraud, employee discrimination, poisoning the water or something else makes zero difference that I can see - the fact is that they have deep pockets and people will sue in the hopes of getting something whether they deserve it or not.
But I asked another hubber what crimes Trump has been convicted of or pled guilty to and got zero answer. Do you have a giant list of convictions you'd like to present, or do you also just automatically guilty of every claim made against him because you don't like the man?
I agree that Trump following tax laws, to the degree he did it legally, is perfectly fine. What is NOT fine is the hypocrisy in doing it while at the same time castigating others (the Rs 47% who they claim pay no taxes) for doing the same thing on their taxes. You also support, apparently, him getting a form of welfare (being given something not earned) that you were once eligible for, but not since Reagan; its called income averaging which is what net operating loss effective is.
Because my income went up and down years ago, I used income averaging on a personal level to spread my taxes over time. With Reagan I lost that ability but Trump didn't ... Why?
Welfare: receipt of unearned products or money - charity.
Taking less than past years is not welfare. It's always interesting to see a reduction in the taking by government considered to be receiving by the taxpayer. Makes a great insinuation, but the lie is really easy to spot (if one cares too, anyway).
Gotta like the little add on of "to the degree he did it legally" - nice insinuation that there was illegal activity there, and all without any factual basis at all.
The Rs don't claim 47% pay no taxes, they claim that about 47% of the population pay no federal income taxes, which is quite true.
But it's interesting that you use tax loopholes to benefit the rich (you didn't use averaging to spread your taxes - you used it to reduce your tax bill just as Trump did), but hate that Trump does the same. How does that work, again?
(Income averaging did not die completely - farmers, commercial fishermen and apparently real estate corporations can still use it.)
But THAT wasn't what Romney said is it? He didn't qualify it by saying federal income taxes, he simply said taxes. And given the Right-wing mindset, I don't know for sure he meant just federal (and state) income taxes.
Please reread what I wrote. I don't fault Trump for using income averaging, it is legal for him. It is NOT, however, for you and me unless we own a business. My POINT is, why the difference, it didn't USE TO BE that way. Why are only business people getting the tax welfare instead of you.
Oh I'm not making any claims, just asking a simple question.
Yes, Trump imports ties etc. from China instead of buying them from US manufactures, because it means more profit for his corporation. Does that suggest he is on the side of ordinary working Americans?
Yes, many multi-national corporations have been found guilty, or sued, for defrauding customers. Trump is CEO of one of those corporations. Whether he is liable or not remains to be seen, but in what way does being indicted for defrauding people indicate that Trump is on the side of ordinary working people?
Yes, corporate interests have managed to ensure tax laws favor the very wealthy, including Trump, while middle and low income earners struggle. In what way does that suggest Trump is on the same side as ordinary working people?
In case you're still not sure, I'm asking why Trump supporters believe he is on the side of ordinary working people? Because it's a mystery to me. What has he actually done to suggest that? I'll take anything at all, from his business affairs, or personal life. Just name something (anything) Trump has done at any point in his life that suggests he is on the same side as ordinary working people.
"Oh I'm not making any claims, just asking a simple question."
LOL Yet your statement is very clear that Trump himself "outsourced" his (nonexistent) manufacturing jobs:
"Trump outsourced the manufacture of various products to at least 12 different countries, including China, the Netherlands, Mexico, India, Turkey, Slovenia, Honduras, Germany, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam and South Korea(1)(2)(3)."
Not sure what makes you think I feel Trump is on the side of ordinary people, for I don't. He is much closer, yes, and understands much better the man in the street than Clinton ever will, but that doesn't mean he is on any side but his own. Clinton is of the aristocracy, the ruling elite that controls the world and has absolutely zero connection to the citizenry. Trump, on the other hand, hires those people, talks to them and walks among them. He uses the laws Clinton's ilk creates work to his advantage, but does not make those laws. Clinton ignores the laws as not applying to her exalted station in life and does whatever she pleases. I see a huge difference whether you do or not.
I can see as plain as day.
"Normalcy bias - dumbed unto death" ~ Steve Quayle
You said "He is much closer, yes, and understands much better the man in the street than Clinton ever will, but that doesn't mean he is on any side but his own. "
How can that POSSIBLY be true. Trump has spent his whole adult life screwing just about anybody he can to make a dollar while Clinton has spent her whole adult life trying to improve conditions for normal Americans (although I suspect you don't believe one historical, recorded word about her that doesn't denigrate her.)
Except that Clinton hasn't spent even a minute trying to improve conditions for normal Americans. She has spent her whole adult life trying to screw normal Americans and increase her political power base without regard to who she hurts or what the long term consequences of her actions will be. That she ascribes to the liberal philosophy of wealth redistribution, locking the peasants into governmental slavery and letting future generations pay for our excesses doesn't help at all.
Give me several examples of how Clinton has tried to screw normal Americans; and don't give me this BS that properly run social welfare programs "lock" people into poverty when the evidence proves exactly the opposite. Find me just one "undebunked" study by an unbiased think-tank that supports your view. I will analyze it, assuming it is transparent, to determine if it is legitimate. (that is what I did for a living, btw)
What locks people into poverty is the powerful, save for a rare few who have a social conscience, paying as little as they can in wages for as much work as they can. That has ALWAYS been true and will ALWAYS be true unless gov't put reasonable breaks on the practice; which is what HRC supports and conservatives of all types do not.
Given two things are a fact of life; 1) the above and 2) minimum wages do reduce start-up businesses; and therefore growth (it has little impact on on-going businesses studies show) then that leads me to one conclusion. The minimum wage should be abolished and the Earned Income Tax Credit greatly expanded to protect those who work but cannot get a fair wage (nor can they bargain for it since the Rs have destroyed) while upper management gets huge, unfair, unearned wages.
Only now, 2016, after corporations have reaped billions off the back of low paid labor for nearly 15 years, since Bush, are having to pay more for labor because FINALLY, some workers actually have choices they can make between jobs at the worker-bee level. That is the only reasons wages have started creeping up because of Obama's full-employment results after the Rs tried SO hard to stop him.
Unfortunately, there ARE no "properly run social welfare programs". Not in this country, at least. Instead they really are designed and operated to lock people into a lifetime of welfare charity, and whether you choose to open your eyes to that or not won't change it.
Before you blame business, look up and find what the average profit rate is. Or the ROR on investment in business. If you find that it is over 10% you would have a case, but you won't.
I'm sure you would like to see more give-aways like the EIT - liberals are great in finding ways to take what is earned and give it to someone else. But it is just another way to strengthen that lock - reduce incentive to work/improve and the lock always grows.
Unfortunately, a "fair" wage means whatever you choose to make it mean. In the case of liberals it is usually far more than the work is worth and that's a fact. Somehow you all tend to ignore and forget that "fair" means market value, not some imagined figure that you pluck out of thin air.
And for conservatives, a 'fair wage' is far less than the work is actually worth...
Not being interested in market value of either labor OR products, how would you know? Make up a number and declare that it is the worth?
For any one, a"fair wage" should be exactly what the work is worth.
That work value could sometimes be even less than minimum wage. Is that an "unfair cost" for the job provider? Does it work both ways, can an employee screw an employer as you say employers do to employees?
Your point is well taken. Mine is just that the Government needs to be involved in setting up a floor for minimum wage above and beyond that the free market can operate without impediment.
How do we determine what the work is worth, $15.00/hr. burger flippers maybe a bit much in much of the U.S?
The goal of the capitalist is to lower costs without regard to forces beyond the concern of the immediate bottom line. So, who makes sure that the capitalist class and industrialists don't continue to move everyone back to era of sweatshops? I trust neither the market nor capitalists to make that determination without government involvement.
So, what is the 'fair value' of labor? Obviously, you going to have to pay hamburger people more in San Francisco and Aspen than in Conway, AR. That justifies the higher minimums in certain areas, because like what happened in Aspen a few years ago, the support staffs could not survive in that vicinity on what like employees were being paid in Denver. Nobody was going to brave the over 100 mile commutes for these wages. I think this is where the partnership between the private sector and the government stepped in? Subsidized housing were built exclusively for the employees in that county. San Fracisco will face similar problems, if not already.
I guess this is somewhat along the lines of our conversation.
"Obviously, you going to have to pay hamburger people more in San Francisco and Aspen than in Conway, AR. "
Why? Is the cost to buy a burger enough more in 'Frisco" that the employee should share in it (I found the cost of a burger there only slightly higher than where I live)? More than a few small restaurants went under in Seattle when it was raised there...
Aspen - it is happening in Sun Valley, too. The cost of housing is far above what the normal low paid employee earns, and the town is considering instituting a minimum wage in order to attract employees. My question becomes "Why"? If employees won't come, and the business shuts down, someone else will open another with wages (and prices) that are attractive enough to bring employees in. To think that the entire town will die because the minimum required wage is too low is ludicrous.
But that's only the start - the mechanic that currently earns $15 fixing the ski lift or your home furnace will now earn minimum wage. When he leaves or dies, who will ever bother to get the training and experience to make minimum wage when they can do the same flipping burgers with zero skills or experience? It's called "inflation", and will go right up the line, only to repeat when the burger flipper can, once again, no longer live there.
In an altercation that I had previously planned to save until later....
Have a look...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … by_country
So, we have the opinions of a fellow from Idaho and that an oranged tinged goblin against the economists and administrators of virtually every government on earth from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. They are not so keen on letting market forces set wages without intervention from their respective governments, to protect labor. Do you think that this multitude might know a little bit more about this than you?
You're right - I put my opinion above that of the handful of countries paying more than the US does. And the reason is that they are all highly socialistic (relative to the US) countries that have assigned a value to a person, not their labor, and are resolved to equalize the wealth as much as possible. A failed policy, and we see that in much of Europe.
But I WILL say that your insinuation that I think government should not be involved at all is foolish - I've repeatedly said (and to you) that some interference is necessary to prevent sweat shops. I've also said that excessively high minimum wages (such as $15) is counterproductive and doomed to failure as businesses fail and inflation runs rampant. It also kills incentive to better ones self as everyone up to a fairly skilled level all earns the same.
I also see that Afghanistan is but a small fraction of our wage and Zimbabwe isn't listed at all, so not sure what you think mentioning them does for your case of excessive minimum wage levels.
I had no idea that you are such the renown economist?
You talk about minimum protection from Government to prevent sweatshops, that requires a minimum wage floor, yes?
What is the cost living in Afghanistan, It would be silly to compare costs of living and fair wages in such disparate economies? But the principle holds, regardless.
You have always said that workers assign too much value to their labor, but there has to be a minimum on wages floor can we agree on that?
The point is whether countries are socialistic or not, they ALL employ this policy. Is it to protect against sweatshops? So much for the invisible hand of the free market..
Didn't actually look at your link, did you? One column is "international dollars" - a unit designed to indicate buying power, not actual dollars. And the buying power of an hours work in Afghanistan is a small fraction of what it is in the US. Most of the countries are - only the socialism of Europe, Australia and Canada are higher (in general - I did not check all 200 countries).
Yep, and government's job is to find at least an approximate value of the least skilled labor being performed and assign the market value of that labor as the minimum wage. What it does instead (in the liberal concept) is decide either what a person shall be valued at or what is the least amount they want a person to earn regardless of the value of the product they produce. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that - it's pretty common knowledge and nothing esoteric at all. It's all about that mythical "living wage" instead of the value being produced.
That, of course Wilderness, is your unsubstantiated opinion, not based on any data. A system that got out of control was Johnson's Great Society. It didn't start out that way, but ended up wasting a lot of money. That is not the case today, not since 1996 anyway when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich settled on a reasonable plan.
I do understand that your far side of the aisle finds helping people out in need through no fault of their own is abhorrent, unAmerican, and reducing their pain and suffering is a waste of money. But that, fortunately went out with the Great Depression.
I guess I do have a point, then. The average ROE for S&P 500 companies today is, according to RBC Capital Markets is 15.3%; it was 14.4% a year ago. The range today is from 6.6% for the insurance sector to 29.2% for Food, Beverage, and Tobacco.
If you consider Net Margins, defined as the percentage of revenue remaining after all operating expenses, interest, taxes and preferred stock dividends (but not common stock dividends) have been deducted from a company's total revenue, then the range is 2.9% for Food and Staples Retailing (a normal rate) to 20.2% for the Software Sector. (Aren't facts fun?)
So please don't talk to me about suffering big business ... IT ISN'T.
Esoteric, if you refuse to look at what our welfare system is doing to people, if you refuse to accept that half the nation getting charity is out of line, I can't help you. Both are obscene and either will end our culture as we know it, but if you think it needs expanded there is nothing more to say.
2.9% profit margin and you think you can double wages?!? And that's all that need be said there, isn't it?
No, business isn't suffering particularly. Neither is the (working) consumer, though, so what is the problem? The small handful of truly disabled? The elderly that depended on politicians to take care of the money they saved for SS? The temporarily out of work (illness, accident, whatever) that want only to go back to work? These people need help, yes, but they are the minority of those that are getting it. And you know this, too.
Wilderness, I do not refuse to "look at what our welfare system is doing to people,"; the fact is I have studied it? I do "accept that half the nation getting charity ..." but not the rest of it. You say it is "obscene" to help people, you say it "will be the end of our culture as YOU know it" not me.
Since we are doing fine since gov't social support systems (Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits, etc) began in 1933. It is now 83 years (37% of our history) later and America has never been better in about any way you measure it (save income inequality which actually got better after WW II until the 1980s).
I see you don't understand how the grocery industry works. Save for baggers who get minimum wage plus tips, I am pretty sure the remaining non-managment employees with any tenure earn over $12/hour - $15/hour. In any case, the reason 2.9% net margin (not profit margin, two entirely different things) is good for this industry is the volume of trade that goes through their stores. Where a company who nets 10% (3 times as high) may have a volume of say 100,000 units a year. Grocery store volume may be 1,000,000 (100 times higher). That is how grocery stores work.
On what planet do you live that allows you to say truthfully that "Neither is the (working) consumer, though, so what is the problem?" Why do you think 47% of WORKING Americans don't pay federal income taxes? Because they can't afford it? Why can't they afford it, because they ARE suffering.
So, you disapprove pf these welfare programs - CHIP for children; food stamps for starving children, Social Security for the elderly, SSI for the disabled, the GI Bill for veterans, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, the various assistance programs for veterans, I think there are about 13 others.
BTW, prior to 1929, charity was rampant in American, but from family, friends, neighbors, churches, and the few non-sectarian charity organization that existed then. What FDR determined to be true, only in good times is that enough and further they found that much of the private charity discriminated terribly.
"You say it is "obscene" to help people"
Care to back up this lie? Bear in mind that most (meaning over half) the charity we give out is "helping" no one at all, and that the "obscene" was clearly linked to the fact that half the nation lives off the other half.
" America has never been better in about any way you measure it"
Well, we've never had as many people, or as high a percentage of people. living solely on the dole from the rest of us. Is that "better" in your measuring system? We've never had to "help" so many people in the history of the nation, providing support they can't or won't supply themselves. Is THAT "better" in your measurement? We've never had such high taxes, for both rich and middle class, as we do now - is that "better"? We've never sold our soul for anywhere near the debt we've accumulated now - surely that isn't "better"? We've never supported so many alien citizens on the American dime, but even you can't actually think that is "better". We've never outsourced so many of our jobs, or lost so much of our manufacturing capability before - do you find that "better"? I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea that your proposal is irrational and silly.
"Save for baggers who get minimum wage plus tips, I am pretty sure the remaining non-managment employees with any tenure earn over $12/hour - $15/hour."
Tell that to those that will believe anything. Be sure to include hard numbers for WalMart and other discount grocery stores - those that get the vast bulk of the business.
The working consumer is not in trouble, however much you'd like to claim they are. That they can't afford a 4,000 home with 3 cars, 2 boats and a cabin on the lake does NOT mean they are in trouble.
"So, you disapprove pf these welfare programs - CHIP for children; food stamps for starving children"
Didn't take long for the common liberal cry of "YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN!!!" to rise up, did it? If that's the best you've got, go back to your easy chair. I'm not interested.
"Social Security for the elderly, SSI for the disabled, the GI Bill for veterans, Medicare for the elderly"
All paid for by job description of the worker, not charity. Care to try again?
"BTW, prior to 1929, charity was rampant in American, but from family, friends, neighbors, churches, and the few non-sectarian charity organization that existed then."
You're right. You just neglect to add that it was totally and completely voluntary - that not a single soul was forced under pain of law to provide it to half the country. That small, but incredibly important, fact seems to be left out of liberal posturing about KILLING THE CHILDREN. Perhaps it should be put back in.
You say it is "obscene" to help people"; Care to back up this lie? - YES, using your own words: "that the "obscene" was clearly linked to the fact that half the nation lives off the other half." You see, "Charity", "public assistance", etc are all designed to help people.
You also said "We've never had to "help" so many people in the history of the nation, providing support they CAN'T or won't supply themselves." While there a relatively FEW people who fall into the "won't" category, the vast, vast majority are those who CAN'T help themselves. You called it "obscene" that gov't helps people who Can't help themselves; which falls in line with those with your philosophy. Since people CAN'T help themselves, what is supposed to happen to them?
You said "Bear in mind that most (meaning over half) the charity we give out is "helping" no one at all ..." - Prove it, since that claim is not realistic on the face of it.
You gave me an idea to include in the next edition of my Recession book - regressing the number of major recessions with expected age from 1800 - 1937. I won't look after that because we had no major recessions until 2008 and it is too soon to calculate expected age. It is interesting because the gov't provided zero support to people suffering from them.
"Well, we've never had as many people, or as high a percentage of people. living solely on the dole from the rest of us." - those specific figures are not available when you limit the scope to "solely". Also, expanding the definition to "receiving public assistance" is not yet available for 2015 and 2016. I will agree prior to that, as a result of the conservative near depression, the rates hit all time highs. I do know, however, that food stamp rates started falling again 2015 and are continuing to do so.
"history of the nation" is disingenuous, btw; public assistance didn't start until after the Great Depression.
"We've never had such high taxes, for both rich and middle class, as we do now" Wrongo, taxes were much higher from 1941 - 1980.
"We've never sold our soul for anywhere near the debt we've accumulated now" - it was higher, as a percent of GDP, in WW II.
We've never supported so many alien citizens on the American dime" - I am not sure if you are talking legal and illegal alien's but as a rule, illegals are not eligible for federal public assistance. Legal aliens are treated much like, but not quite the same as regular citizens; After 1996, there access was drastically cut. - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33809.pdf
"We've never outsourced so many of our jobs" - blame your like-minded conservatives for that.
"or lost so much of our manufacturing capability before" this loss is predictable as a nation matures, it happens to EVERY nation. Those jobs, however are replaced by others.since total employment is higher than it has ever been, and even participation rate (much of which is voluntary and not forced) is on the way up again.
Walmart averages $13/hour for full-time workers
"The working consumer is not in trouble, however much you'd like to claim they are. That they can't afford a 4,000 home with 3 cars, 2 boats and a cabin on the lake does NOT mean they are in trouble" - You are talking about the top 10% income earners to can do that. A single-earner family of 3 who earn less than $15/hour can afford the basics. At $12/hour, they are living on the edge. See http://hubpages.com/politics/Poverty-Wh … erica-2351 to see what your fellow hubbers think.
"So, you disapprove pf these welfare programs - CHIP for children; food stamps for starving children"
"Didn't take long for the common liberal cry of "YOU WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN!!!" to rise up, did it?" - is the standard response to something they don't have an answer for - just ignore it and pretend it doesn't, or couldn't exist. WHY do you think these programs are in place to begin with?
"Social Security for the elderly, SSI for the disabled, the GI Bill for veterans, Medicare for the elderly"
"All paid for by job description of the worker, not charity" ?? to the degree the worker DIDN'T pay for them, which is most of it, it is still public assistance. Care to try again?
"BTW, prior to 1929, charity was rampant in American, but from family, friends, neighbors, churches, and the few non-sectarian charity organization that existed then."
"You just neglect to add that it was totally and completely voluntary..." - No, I didn't neglect it, that was the point. Being voluntary didn't do the job.
"You see, "Charity", "public assistance", etc are all designed to help people."
Unfortunately, that's untrue, for public assistance is not, and never was, designed to help people. It is designed to provide them with both needs and luxuries when they don't support themselves, and that's not "help", at least not in my opinion. "Help" might be providing a job, it might be providing training or even work clothing, but it is not simply giving them what they want so they can refuse to better themselves. It is a very effective chain and works very well, but it does not "help" anyone at all.
"While there a relatively FEW people who fall into the "won't" category, the vast, vast majority are those who CAN'T help themselves."
A very nice statement, full of wonderful platitudes from the liberal left, but one that has little connection to reality. What it is really saying is that half the country cannot provide for their basic needs and no one truly considering the facts will ever believe that.
If you need proof that a lifetime of giving is not "helping" anyone to support themselves you're into the liberal fantasy even deeper than I thought.
"Wrongo, taxes were much higher from 1941 - 1980."
Now, now - don't go repeating the liberal lies. While rates may have been higher, the taxes actually paid were most definitely not. It is quite popular to point to those 90% rates as an example of what the wealthy should be paying as "fair", but the fact is that no one paid them.
""We've never sold our soul for anywhere near the debt we've accumulated now" - it was higher, as a percent of GDP, in WW II. "
Hogwash, although it was probably so just after the war. Which means that that debt paid for the freedom of the world - somehow I don't see the giveaway programs that have driven the current debt (including the misbegotten one that everyone can have a home while drove the recession) as providing freedom for the world. Try again.
"illegals are not eligible for federal public assistance"
Sure they aren't. Like free medical care. Like free schooling. Like free school lunches. And whether you like it or not, or whether it is legal or not, illegals commonly receive food stamps, WIC and other giveaways.
"We've never outsourced so many of our jobs" - blame your like-minded conservatives for that."
I blame the greed of the American consumer and the shortsightedness of our political system - both parties - for it. As should you.
"Walmart averages $13/hour for full-time workers"
May be...if you include supervisory staff. The unskilled floor sweeper and shelf stocker doesn't, and those are the ones you're complaining are worth a higher wage.
"this loss is predictable as a nation matures, it happens to EVERY nation."
And because other nations have made the mistake means we should, too? Very simply put, I disagree. Globalization is a hated word to many, yet this very lack of manufacturing ability (which won WWII for us) is causing it. Bring our jobs back, become self sufficient again instead of depending on other nations to build what we want.
"Being voluntary didn't do the job."
Really? What was the death rate from either starvation or exposure? It didn't do the job with the standard of living the liberals want to require, no, but then that isn't necessary either.
So for you, although Trump is not on anyone's side but his own, he is closer to ordinary people than Clinton because he is not part of the "aristocracy" or "ruling elite". And you believe he is not part of the ruling elite because he not only "hires [ordinary people]", but also "walks among them, talks to them". Like Jesus! - just kidding.
Trump does hire ordinary people . . . but he also fires them for wanting to be part of a union(1), and refuses to negotiate contracts with legally organized groups of workers(2). So is firing people who organize unions part of the "connection to the citizenry" you believe he has?
Outside of campaign photo ops, when does Trump walk and talk with ordinary people? Do you mean on the way to his private Boeing 757, or helicopter, or one of his cars, or his 24-karat gold motorcycle(3)? In what way does travelling in your own private jet give you a "connection to the citizenry"?
You are right, Trump doesn't make laws . . . . but in 1998 alone he spent $290,000 ($428,000 in today's money) lobbying (Democratic and Republican) politicians who do make the law(5). In what way does spending hundreds of thousands of dollars influencing politicians, give someone a "connection to the citizenry"? When was the last time you spent that amount getting politicians to do what you want?
Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Trump (or anyone) spending their own money in whatever way they please, but when someone suggest Trump is not part of the ruling elite, on the grounds that he walks and talks with ordinary people, I do wonder what I'm missing. He very clearly doesn't do either of those things, and he has more influence on what becomes law than any ordinary person does. Yet still you have the perception he not part of the ruling elite. As far as I can see the only genuine difference between Trump and other politicians is that he is openly racist and sexist. Other politicians who harbor similar thoughts usually try to hide them a little. Is that the "connection to the citizenry" you are talking about?
(1) https://thinkprogress.org/labor-board-s … .u8701n9mp
(2) http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-tru … story.html
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-ger … 15638.html
(4) https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby. … D000030559
(5) http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/d … z4MiFp9BNs
The Comeback King was billions of dollars in debt and talked about it on The Apprentice.
The US is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt. I trust Trump to be able to reduce that debt and WE can make a comeback.
In 1995 the New York Times praised Trump with "Crowning the Comeback King"!
* http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/25/nyreg … -king.html
After the collapse of the real estate market of the 1980's, Mr. Trump's company was left holding some $8.8 billion in debt, causing his personal net worth to drop to a low of about $1 billion in the red by 1991.
I think it was in 2014 the NYT didn't pay any taxes. They learned!
Who pays more taxes then they have to? Do you?
Federal law makes it illegal to publish an unauthorized tax return:
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."
You, and the NY politicians (not the NYT), were (are) premature. He spent the next decade plus running his casino businesses into the ground; they never were profitable. He filed is final bankruptcy in 2014. A year later this so-called success announced he was going to run for President so that He can be great again, and probably bankrupt America in the process..
I DO think! A narcissist (and Donald Trump fits the textbook description of that behavioral disorder so much that one reputable teaching psychiatrist uses him as an example of narcissism in one of his university classes) is not capable of putting other people or, indeed, the best interests of an entire country before his own wants. He would like the power and would probably think of himself as a king, but he wouldn't want to actually fulfill the responsibilities of the office, nor could he.
I believe that Trump is the embodiment of what America has come to disfavor through our political views. While he has been able to come back multiple times from bankruptcy, he represents one of the founding principles that the Founders of our country wished to avoid. Directly following the ideas of the elitist view, which states that it is comprised of a government where the elite class form a central power rather than the diverse opinions of the middle class, Trump shows through his lack of confirmed tax releases that he may in fact be aligned with the elitism idealism of government. As a result of this, I believe that Trump may very well be a threat to our system of government that the Founding Fathers worked so hard for to create, and electing him as a President would potentially be disastrous for the American government we thrive in today.
And this guy is supposed to be a populist on the working man's behalf? yeah right...
I read that as 'the Mormons'. I couldn't figure out why they would vote for Hillary.
Oh, tummy laughter is great!
Do you think Democrats or anyone would consider Steve Jobs a failed businessman for losing 1.05 billion dollars in '97? I'm sure he did things according to the law to make a comeback too!
Clinton Foundation 'fraud began with exploiting earthquake' in Haiti
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foun … 8DKj2Vf.99
Did you notice that the TV says "Interim CEO for PART of the Year"?
Did you notice that APPLE lost the $1B?
Did you notice that Jobs DID NOT declare a billion dollar loss on HIS income tax?
Did you notice where Jobs turned Apple around from near bankruptcy into one of the powerhouses today?
Did you notice that Trump continued to drive his companies into bankruptcy through 2014?
So, what was your point again?
You didn't get those points from a reputable business site.
Remember Whitewater and failed Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/h … fts-229093
A reputable business site like Drudge, Limbaugh, Hannity?
In any case, give me a site that disputes each of those points? In addition to common sense, I can give you many site like Forbes, Bloomberg, Washington Post, etc that does.
Forbes is pretty darn good...go for it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconno … 2b59366f7a
Its just common sense, but the average person might not be able to understand it. I think you'll get it. Sorry, they didn't know you would want to prove your points when they published it.
Drudge puts links on his site from everywhere, including articles that bash him because he thinks its funny, and that people 'get it'.
Hannity is not a reporter/journalist, he is a talk show host and a very good one. Honest man!
Limbaugh, I don't read his stuff much, but I do admire his humanitarian efforts greatly.
Your Forbes article helps make my point, thank you. Then there is Bloomburg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ … -1997-2011
Once upon a long time ago, regular people were allowed to average their income just like the wealthy ($1B LOSS); Reagan killed ours, but not theirs ... WHY?
He has finally crossed over to a direct line by joining the political power that drains this country. I say he has joined as his actions of the past have little to do with the transparent promises he makes if he becomes President. His economic policies beckon back to the VOO DOO echoes of Reaganomics and its' failures while he promotes a heavy handed foreign policy of military build up and threatening tones. This while claiming a isolationist stance with trade and diplomacy.
Hillary is no better with her veiled Obama policy continuation as she has to pay back all the favors she has bankrolled her candidacy with. We are a pathetic bunch of cowards unwilling to bite the bullet of change that is painful and full of selfish blunders in trying to control others with our greedy exploits. We have to re-invent ourselves and reverse our path down the worm hole of irrelevance and poverty.
There is noting "veiled" about HRC's desire to continue PBO's successful policies, but with a more "take charge" attitude.
Success as defined by who? Many have not recovered from the devastating losses of the great recession. Wall Street continues to borrow money at 0% and sell our money back to us at a percentage all under PBO's watchful eye. The next step is to finally come after our homes as the economy crashes again while running up the debt our children will be left to pay for. Maybe another Obama will come along then and "save" us from more devastation.
Excuse my delay in response as I among others have been working around 'Matthew' the last couple of days.
I understand reinventing ourselves, I was hoping to get in the right direction with Bernie. This did not turn out, so what is the alternative? I can't stand Trump, so for me I am left with Hillary and the status quo with all of her faults.
Trump is just another plutocrat, hardly a breath of fresh air. He proposes GOP policy initiatives which for the most part, I oppose anyway. The directionObama takes us in was better than, say G.w.Bush, even though they are both standard politicians, in my opinion. He would done even better without GOP recalcitrance and obstruction throughout his term.
While both parties are hopelessly snarled in status quo rigidity, one side has addresses at least some of my concerns while the other in committed to going in the opposite direction
All people have faults, including Hillary, but what "faults" does she have that would make her a bad President? (I am drawing a distinction between personality faults and policy disagreements.)
She lies no more or less than the run-of-the-mill pol. None of her bad judgments are catastrophic in nature, even the email thing (now, if she hadn't used state-of-the-art security measures on her server, I would think differently, but every indication is, she did.) As Sec State, there is no indication her, and her staffs, actual relationship with Clinton Foundation donors was any different than is the norm in Washington.
She is very defensive and secretive, but then who wouldn't be given the despicable way she has been treated for the last 30 years and the modern media's penchant for twisting words and sensationalizing headlines in the name of profit and poor journalism.
Frankly, I have run out of faults..
M.E, ideology and platform is more important than personality issues, in my opinion. If HC was so problematic there would no way that she would be allowed at the top of the ticket for any major political party. This probably explains why otherwise perfectly normal conservatives and Republicans are getting in line behind Trump, despite his high negatives, even for them.
Comey / Lynch connect with Clintons and HSBC. (taxes, etc.)
They are connected in more ways, but I'm tired.
A guy's accountants use the tax code to have their client pay the least possible.
Do we demand a fair and just tax code? Of course not. We demonize the person who is filing the taxes his accountants prepare. It's so much easier and lots more fun.
I've seen conservatives on these forums repeatedly demonize the poor and working class for not paying taxes. I've seen conservatives on these forums demonize the poor for receiving entitlements from the government, legally. It seems that many of these conservatives hold poor people to a higher standard than Donald Trump.
My Esoteric: This is the world we live in. Nothing, nothing, nothing matters to Trump followers except being able to say, "Well, she is too." like a bunch of middle schoolers. The only comfort is to know that if he wins, they will have gotten what they deserve. Of course, we will all of us have to suffer, though.
Five bucks says within 5 minutes of this post, someone will write: If she wins, we will have gotten what we deserve too.
Yep, Experience and Qualifications. (No, they won't write that.)
As for me, I'm voting for Jill Stein. I'm getting old and want to see someone with integrity in the White House, not a narcissist or corporate shill. I think the Hillary and Trump supporters are forgetting the huge numbers of voters who are completely disgusted with the status quo and not willing to "settle" again. That includes a lot of disgusted Democrats and disgusted-with-Trump Republicans. There's a very large bloc of Independent voters, and here's what made me smile earlier today. Ron Paul said he will not support Johnson, who calls himself a Libertarian, but will vote for Jill Stein! Actually, that statement made my day! Bless your heart, Ron Paul (and I never thought I'd say that!)
If you want those qualities, Gary Johnson fits the bill, not Stein from what I have seen of her. She is just as Narcissistic as Clinton, but no one compares to Trump.
It is mathematically impossible, let alone politically, for Stein to win. So voting for her is simply to close your eyes to how it will affect America and vote your conscience.
For me, it still would be Clinton, but when I vote, I vote for what I think is best for America in a practical sense, not necessarily who I think would do the better job. If I did that, I would write in Colin Powell's name.
I think it was Donald Trump himself that leaked his private protected tax information, so that the vast corruption of government and multi-nation corporations and the Clinton Foundation could be exposed.
He needs to start talking about his historic numbers as the "Comeback King".
Its brilliant, Trump trolled the media!
This is incredibly hilarious.
You do know that the "Comeback King" is no longer a complement, but a derision that highlights his inability to keep his businesses afloat. He has zero long-term successes, except maybe his reality show; he has few ventures that remained solvent five year or more, and some (his casinos) never were solvent.
Your definition of success is beyond me, color.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -bankrupt/
How many times has Warren Buffet declared bankruptcy?
How many casinos has Warren Buffet owned and operated during the period that Casinos were in trouble and going under (you are aware that Caesars is in major trouble even now and may follow Trumps example with more than the handful they've closed?).
Hard to understand just why Trump is so demonized for his failed casinos when so many have shut their doors in Vegas alone. It is a tough business, and bankruptcy is quite common.
Many casino's survived that period without BK; Trump failed as a business man SIX, count them, SIX times.
He does do better when he partners with someone who knows what they are doing however; I will give you that.
Many survived. Many failed. But the only failure we hear about is Trump - why is that? Because it makes great fodder for the Democratic mud machine, that's why!
Trump had some failures, but you don't get to be a billionaire by constantly failing - there were many more successes than failures. Even a Trump hater has to recognize that simple fact.
Because he's running fore president. Duh!
You got it in one. And that he is running means massive amounts of mud in today's political elections.
Sure does! And maybe it's just me, but it seems to get worse each election while giving less and less information that is actually pertinent. From both directions.
This election is infinitely worse than past ones.
Seems like it to me. Or maybe we just have selective memories, I don't know.
But I do know that I've heard precious little about policies or beliefs. Trump wants a wall, Clinton wants a free ride for anyone coming across the border. Trump wants to re-vamp trade agreements, Clinton likes them the way they are. Clinton will make as many gun grabs as possible, Trump is waffling on the issue.
And that's about it! Almost nothing on important issues (important to me, anyway), and what there is is so vague as to be meaningless.
Well, you can't say there isn't a huge contrast between the two. Anyone who still remains undecided must not be paying attention.
You're right there - a huge contrast. And the sad thing is that, as far as I'm concerned, that contrast is as much or more about personalities and attitudes than it is about policies. I don't care for Clinton's policies and favor Trumps - reasonable as I'm no liberal - but it's mostly about the underlying attitudes and what I can stomach and what I can't, or what I think is very detrimental and what I think is less so.
BTW, why are SO MANY Republicans, disavowing Trump and some, like H.W. Bush, going to vote for Hillary. What do they know that you don't? (and this was before the latest proof of his monumental misogyny. Now, more GOP Senators and Representatives are leaving him and even asking him to quit the race ... WHY? Do you ask yourself that?
Didn't read my post too well, did you?
Politicians WANT a political insider - someone that is experienced in the wielding of political power and has lots of it behind them - and Trump doesn't fit either of those requirements. Politicians WANT someone of their own ilk, that they can understand and deal with in the back rooms of Capital Hill, and Trump doesn't fit that mold either.
So they run from such a candidate. They don't want an outsider, they don't want someone not so beholden to the political machines they've carefully crafted. They don't want someone that isn't absolutely dependent on them for their every move and for their re-election.
So they don't want Trump. Have YOU ever asked just why, or just shout out that politicians don't like him as if that is a bad thing? You've got politicians jumping party lines (strongly forbidden on the Hill) to get away from an outsider and you don't understand why? To a Big Government liberal it should be quite obvious - because they lack the control over Trump they might have over a more typical politician, even one as powerful as Clinton.
You are making this WAY too simple. While Trump may be an outsider, in all respects, it was their outsider. Many who endorsed him, are now unendorsing him. May I remind you that being an "outsider" doesn't qualify him to be a good president. Hitler was an outsider. He and Trump share many common traits, starting with narcissism, megalomania, appealing to the worst in humanity, sexist, racist, prolific lying, detached from reality, creating a common enemy (Jews in Hitler's case, and Muslims in Trumps) but able to preach a populist, although false message very well.
Fortunately, you will be unable to point to any post of mine that indicates Trump will be a good president. He may well prove to be the worst in the nation's history.
But if that's what it takes to convince our caring, loving politicians that the country and it's people come BEFORE their own personal interests, so be it. Trump will damage the country and it's reputation but we can and will recover.
But another 8 years of the likes of Clinton and I'm not at all sure we can ever do that. We have already lost much of what made us the greatest nation on earth - self reliance and responsibility - in return for a nanny state that will care for us from cradle to grave and powerful political figures to force us to do what is in their best interests rather than our own.
So Trump, damaging as he will be, is the only answer available at this time. We can but hope that the future will bring us more honest politicians, and by that I don't mean they don't lie (although that would help, too) - I mean that the needs of the country come first rather than their own political power structure.
'But if that's what it takes to convince our caring, loving politicians that the country and it's people come BEFORE their own personal interests, so be it. Trump will damage the country and it's reputation but we can and will recover'
What makes you think that Trump is any different in regards to the people verses politicians personal interests?
There is no reason to believe that he is any less corrupt than Clinton. The way he conducts his personal affairs within the private sector is not a source of encouragement.
You do know that Trump's and his wife names are on many of their product brands, most of it made outside the U.S.? So, if we want to talk about bringing jobs home, maybe he should start with ones that he controls?
If you want to lead, you have to set the example....
Maybe, you are just attracted to him because he speaks the standard GOP claptrap, and adhere closely to their philosophy. It has nothing to do with his being a populist maverick?
"What makes you think that Trump is any different in regards to the people verses politicians personal interests?"
For the life of me I cannot understand what is so hard to understand about this. Trump has almost zero political power: his power comes from money. Clinton is flat broke by Trump's standards, but has tremendous political power. Political power has very nearly cost this country its very existence, as we knew it. Political power has become the coin, not money, that runs the country - even the rich must go through the politician (by paying money) to get what they want. It is far past time that the American citizen recognizes the downfall of unlimited political power and puts a stop to it.
"You do know that Trump's and his wife names are on many of their product brands, most of it made outside the U.S.?"
I repeat, where is his manufacturing plants to support the quaint notion that HE is responsible for shipping jobs overseas? That a minor portion of his business is selling products made abroad, like almost every other product we all buy, is of no import - where is his vast manufacturing plants that he has moved overseas?
"If you want to lead, you have to set the example...."
Neither he nor anyone else is going to set much example selling products that no one will buy because they cost too much. Do not blame Trump for jobs going abroad: blame you, I and every other American citizen for that is where the buck stops in this case.
Now you're getting just plain obnoxious, suggesting that Trump appeals to me. He doesn't, and I've said that repeatedly. That some of his vague, undefined policies are more in line with what the country needs than anything Clinton has come up with does NOT make Trump attractive.
Well, based on what I'm reading today, Trump's chances of getting elected and blowing up the system are dwindling fast. I can understand and accept your position much better than those who try to claim Trump is morally superior to Hillary, especially when they use Bill as their reason.
If you had a decent human being with a reasonable amount of knowledge and good judgement to be the destroyer of the system, I might even be with you.
In your opinion as to what the country needs, I think that I do understand now...
I would agree, Wilderness, you do not have a selective memory; instead you have a very imaginative one.
TRUMP did say, many, many times that he wants to build a wall, as ridiculous as that is and the more absurd that he would get Mexico to pay of it (without hurting America in the process)
CLINTON DID NOT say anything about her wanting to give " a free ride for anyone coming across the border. ". She never has and never will.
BOTH Clinton AND Trump have said they want to revamp TPP
CLINTON has NEVER said anything about "grabbing guns"; just the opposite, actually.
You hate HRC so much that you make things up about her (or repeat what others are lying about)
I have PERSONALLY heard HRC outline, and sometimes detail, a multitude of policy positions; both in and out of the debates. While I have heard Trump issue a few policy details, then change his mind (Deportation Force, for example) and then change his mind, and sometimes change it again, depending on the audience ... they are rare. Further, I can think of only one plan that he hasn't reversed himself on and that is his stupid wall (sort of reminds me of the one East Germany built).
I have repeatedly asked Trump supporters why, if Trump is such an awesome businessman, he doesn't have even one of his peers singing his praises and supporting him for president. Crickets....
Again, even a Trump hater has to understand that. He doesn't get along with Big Business and their political ploys. NO ONE in the power hierarchy likes him - he doesn't play ball with them. Which is why he belongs in the White House. To put a stop to the "business as usual" on the Hill.
UH OH: Clintons Accused Of Dodging Federal Taxes, Established 'Shell Companies'
* http://www.hannity.com/articles/electio … -15164836/
Things just keep on getting more interesting. Well, maybe its not that interesting anymore, not to many anyway.
by IslandBites3 weeks ago
Do you think this small leak is a Trump's campaign strategy to kill the issue? Or, do you think this is only a preview of what's to come soon to attack him?
by Steven Escareno12 days ago
After the latest presidential debate on 10/09/2016, CNN asked a championship winning high school debate team to critique both Hilary Clinton's and Donald Trump's performance. Take in mind, CNN did say these...
by Credence210 hours ago
Even when Trump may have a good idea or two, his temperament and personality negates it all.There is a place for conservatives ideas within the public forum and while their messages are valid and at least deserving of...
by Ralph Schwartz4 days ago
The Democrats, desperate in their attempts to keep Hillary viable in the eyes of Americans, are trying to make hay out of an old recording of Donald Trump. The entire Party is "condemning" Trumps...
by Sychophantastic2 months ago
Here's the link to the poll, which was taken in February:http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main … leads.htmlHere are some of the things that South Carolina's Trump supporters apparently believe:80% support a...
by Scott Bateman3 months ago
Well, yes. The answer is obvious.1) They oppose background checks and other gun laws so mentally unstable people can buy assault rifles and commit mass murders like in Orlando and Connecticut.2) They favor multi...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.