Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[5th line wingnutt]

22 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Obama?  Huh?

And wow, that last sentence.  You're a little out there if you think the DNC was behind getting Donald Trump elected as president.

And none of it means that the "Boris & Natasha hoax has crashed and burned."

You misunderstood.  The report could conclude that Trump was unaware.  So what?  The report did not conclude that Trump did not collude.  So what?  The report did not conclude much of anything other than Russia interfered.  (I notice you edited your post).

Collusion was a hoax cooked up by HRC & the DNC.  The Steele dossier was a hoax cooked up by HRC & the DNC.

Crash & Burn stands.

Do you believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?  If so, what do you think happened?

You're a little out there if you thought that "the DNC was behind getting Donal Trump elected" was what I meant.

[Ogre]

6 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

I choose neither.  Corporate taxes being too high was making our corporation noncompetitive.  When the Trump tax rate cut went into effect lots of people in high tax were complaining about double taxation, some in this very thread.  Corporate profits are quadruple taxed.  The before tax profits are taxed by the feds and the states (not all states but many) at an average rate somewhere between 5% to 10%.  After tax profits that are paid out to shareholders are also taxed by the feds and most states.  That is a lot.  Additionally, if a US company makes a profit abroad they pay corporate taxes abroad and if they bring profits home they pay a repatriation tax.

If we went back to following the constitution we could cut the federal government by 90%.

I’m a curious person by nature... I have a few questions...

1) When do you feel that we stopped “following the constitution”?

2) How does corporate America relate to the Constitution?

3) Are you cutting the federal budget by 90% or are you cutting federal jurisdictions by 90%?  Are we eliminating government programs by 90%? Defense spending by 90%? Do we ignore disasters they require the assistance of FEMA by 90%?  I’ll be honest. This statement is too vague and convoluted for me to put it into a category.

4) What worth do you assign the average working American vs the average corporate owner? 

5) In relation to question number one, how do you feel about Donnie’s promise to circumvent the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution?

6) How does the importance of corporate America compare to the importance as a major supplier of the worlds food?

7) Have you ever heard of the popular rural mantra of “No farms, no food?” Can Donnie recapture the lost markets for American farmers if his trade war ever ends? Has he thumbed the nose of globalization to the point that it’s biting his ass? Has it ever happened in the history of the world that a trade war ruined a provider to a market? 

 

[SwampD]

If we’re still writing the history books in 30 years, I’ll be shocked if they don’t say that Trump was a Russian mole.

Destabilizing China. Destabilizing Europe. Destabilizing the US. The only place he hasn’t gone after is Russia.

[Eleven]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

If we’re still writing the history books in 30 years, I’ll be shocked if they don’t say that Trump was a Russian mole.

Destabilizing China. Destabilizing Europe. Destabilizing the US. The only place he hasn’t gone after is Russia.

I don't think he's a Russian mole.  I think he has a mental and/or emotional disorder and just wants to watch the world burn.  If only Fred had given him a hug...

Edited August 24, 2019 by Eleven

[LGR4GM]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:03 PM, 5th line wingnutt said:

Thanks for posting something I could get my teeth into.  I read all of this stuff.  It is like a lot of economic news, a mixed bag.  I do not think it proves much of anything, one way or another.  As to your graph, employment bottomed early in 2010.  During most recoveries employment gets back on track much faster.  We only reached full employment about a year ago. I think the stimulus slowed the recovery.  It failed by its own metric (it was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%).  It was total pork, wasting about 850B.  Had it been for infastructure it might have been almost worth it.  There was a lot more idiocy, none dumber than cash for clunkers, "only" about 3B but totally nonsensical.  Another problem was the near endless extension of unemployment benefits.

As to deficits, I agree with you.  They are bad. OTOH, I do not remember you complaining about them during Mr. Obama's tenure.  Sooner or later debt service will kill us.  I have been in favor of a balanced budget amendment for my entire adult life.  There are almost no budget hawks left in Washington, D.C.  If there is even a single Democrat budget hawk I am not aware of him.  Most Democrats claim to be Keynesians.  If you have actually read Keynes you will know he was aginst structural deficits.  Rand Paul is the only budget hawk I can think of, offhand.  You seem to think deficits are caused by the Trump tax cut.  Nope.  Total tax revenues are up since the tax cut passed.  Corporate tax revenue is down but personal tax revenue is up.  Spending is up even more than revenue.  We need to get spending under control.  I was in favor of the tax cut because corporate taxes were way too high.  Even Mr. Obama said so.

Full stop. 

Deficit spending during a recession is a sound economic principle regardless of my views on it. I did not like it even then though because it was money paid mostly to keep banks and businesses form failing by stripping money from hard working Americans.  I like it less now that Trump has accelerated it. 

Also, nice whataboutism. 

This sentence is factually incorrect. But since you asked for evidence I now will require the same. Where is your evidence that tax revenue is up? Corporate tax revenue fell through the floor and spending remained the same. So the increase in deficit was caused the tax cut. Again show me evidence that the way you are presenting this is correct. 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

This sentence is factually incorrect. But since you asked for evidence I now will require the same. Where is your evidence that tax revenue is up? Corporate tax revenue fell through the floor and spending remained the same. So the increase in deficit was caused the tax cut. Again show me evidence that the way you are presenting this is correct. 

I think he got this one correct.  https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Tax revenues went from 3.27T to 3.44T under Trump.  I haven't found anything specifically tying it to any one reason.  It's certainly possible that it is due to current employment levels being higher.  Corporate tax contributions are down 2% so it certainly seems to be an increase in income tax revenues.

[Samson's Flow]

On 8/23/2019 at 12:12 PM, Weave said:

A good read about the need for voting in favor of process over policy.

https://reason.com/2019/08/21/justin-amash-wants-to-talk-about-process-and-love-but-his-constituents-want-to-talk-about-gun-control/

 

Thanks for sharing Weave. Regardless of party affiliation we should all be working to have our conversations and as an extension our government to act in a way that facilitates conversations and actually functions like a democracy (or more accurately a representative republic).

Consolidation of power to the point where a handful of people make all the decisions shifts our government a lot closer to a dictatorship than I imagine a lot of us a comfortable with.

I would point out that the proliferation of the internet has shifted our society away from the ability to conduct a civil conversation with differing viewpoints. It's all internet trolling and echo chamber content lately. 

[5th line wingnutt]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Full stop. 

Deficit spending during a recession is a sound economic principle regardless of my views on it. I did not like it even then though because it was money paid mostly to keep banks and businesses form failing by stripping money from hard working Americans.  I like it less now that Trump has accelerated it. 

Also, nice whataboutism. 

This sentence is factually incorrect. But since you asked for evidence I now will require the same. Where is your evidence that tax revenue is up? Corporate tax revenue fell through the floor and spending remained the same. So the increase in deficit was caused the tax cut. Again show me evidence that the way you are presenting this is correct. 

John Maynard Keynes would agree, I do not.  Neither do Murray Rothbard, F A Hayek, and Milton Friedman.  I have read both Keynes and his critics, for my money the critics have the better of it.  If you do not like it we are in agreement.  Trump has continued it, so did Obama.

@Weave just rained on your parade.  I do not have a link just lying around, it is something I read a couple of months ago.  Will you accept Weave's link (I have not read it) or do you want me to dig one up?

[SABRES 0311]

Not sure the President should be talking about hosting the next G7 at one of his resorts. He said he doesn’t think he will make money off it but I’m pretty sure summits aren’t free. I support they guy but I did a face palm on that one. 

[Eleven]

The notion that because Obama did something, it's ok for Trump to do it, is flawed for at least two reasons:

(1) It implicitly denies the fact that Trump was elected as the "Anti-Obama."

(2) It implies that if one doesn't like Trump, one must have liked Obama.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Just because I recognize that Trump is a disgusting human being who has long sunk into degeneracy and is sinking into dementia does not mean that I thought Obama was a good president.

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

John Maynard Keynes would agree, I do not.  Neither do Murray Rothbard, F A Hayek, and Milton Friedman.  I have read both Keynes and his critics, for my money the critics have the better of it.  If you do not like it we are in agreement.  Trump has continued it, so did Obama.

@Weave just rained on your parade.  I do not have a link just lying around, it is something I read a couple of months ago.  Will you accept Weave's link (I have not read it) or do you want me to dig one up?

He didn't rain on my parade. I actually like learning things. I also like how you ignored the rest of my first post where I say I didn't like how Obama handled the recovery by bailing out banks and fatcats.

As to what Weave posted. My issue is that the tax cut was a way to give corporations more money by screwing over the rest of us which it did. They eliminated personal deductions in order to give other deductions to corporations (that's why a bunch of personal deductions expire but corporate ones do not). Considering how corporations were already using the tax loopholes not to pay (see Amazon) I am the least bit surprised. Specifically I am talking about this "The tax law, passed by Republicans without any Democratic support, lowered the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent and cut individual taxes across income brackets for eight years. It doubled the standard deduction and enhanced the child tax credit. And it closed or tightened various tax breaks — most notably by capping the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted — which had its biggest impact on residents of high-tax, largely Democratic-run states." So it makes since that individual income revenue is up while corporate is down. Further while that 3.27 to 3.44 is fine on paper does it account for the standard inflation seen each year and does it account for the low unemployment rate? Also if we were seeing more tax revenue and did not increase spending than why is the deficit ballooning the way it is? I answer this below. 

Let's also not forget this detail: "Corporate tax cuts are permanent, while the personal provisions expire after 2025 (Republicans have said they will renew them when the time comes). The Tax Policy Center estimates that 53% of people will actually pay more in taxes by 2027." That 53% is not the wealthy who don't need any tax cuts, no that 53% is the middle class.

Also:

"How the Tax Bill Will Be Paid For

The bill adds over $1.46 trillion to deficits over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, with virtually no mechanisms to offset those losses.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has long wanted to cut social programs and pursue “entitlement reform,” which means cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, and has said he will look at those to reduce the deficit. Senator Marco Rubio, too, has said Medicare and Social Security will need to be rejiggered to pay for the deficit created by cutting taxes, “in a way that doesn’t impact current retirees or people about to retire, but in a way that would probably impact it for me and people younger than me.” (Trump has repeatedly said he will not touch the programs.)

This is another criticism of the bill: It is true that the average person will get $1,600 cut for 2018. (You can use this calculator to get a better idea of how you’ll specifically be affected.) But it’s also true that if the increased deficit resultant from the bill is used as the reason to restructure Social Security and Medicare, younger people are likely going to be out a lot more than $1,600."  https://twocents.lifehacker.com/the-basics-of-the-gop-tax-plan-explained-1821583174

So as a younger American, I see this bill for what it is. A Baby Boomer wealth tax cut to pad their banks account while putting off paying for it until they are dead or retired. It is raising the deficit just as predicted and the GOP solution to fix that mess is to cut medicaid and social security. Nothing like passing a tax cut and then making the next generation pay for it, that's the baby boomer way. The deficit is increasing faster post tax cut than before and a direct result of that is that the tax cut was a scam to help the rich.  Don't believe me? "In the most recent report ending in September 2018 for the full fiscal year 2018 it shows that the federal budget deficit increased from $666 billion in fiscal 2017 to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, an increase of $113 billion or 17%. In the same report corporate tax receipts dropped from $297 billion in fiscal 2017 to $205 billion in fiscal 2018, a decrease of $92 billion or 31%. The $92 billion would account for 82% of the increase in the deficit." https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/31/trumps-additional-budget-deficit-was-largely-due-to-the-corporate-tax-cut/#2636923e58f7 BUT WAIT THERES MORE! 

"For the corporate portion to be “revenue neutral” at 21% vs. the previous 35% rate companies’ profits will have to increase by 67%. Here is an example of the calculations for corporations tax payments to be the same." So even if revenue increased the deficit still increased faster because the tax cut was a scam that was never going to pay for itself and did exactly what economists said it would do.... allow companies to buyback stocks and reward investors. 

But wait... THERES MORE! 

"Note that individual tax receipts actually increased from $1,587 billion in fiscal 2017 to $1,684 billion in fiscal 2018, higher by $96 billion or 6%. However, this could be due to multiple reasons such as more people being employed, inflation, lower withholding rates not being fully taken advantage of and most individuals not “truing up” until they receive their refunds next year." https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/10/31/trumps-additional-budget-deficit-was-largely-due-to-the-corporate-tax-cut/#2636923e58f7

 

Still more... https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55329

"Total Receipts: Up by 2 Percent in the First Eight Months of Fiscal Year 2019

Receipts totaled $2,274 billion during the first eight months of fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates—$49 billion (or 2 percent) more than during the same period last year. That increase was the result of changes in receipts from the following sources:

Individual income and payroll (social insurance) taxes together rose by $51 billion (or 3 percent).

Amounts withheld from workers’ paychecks rose by $30 billion (or 2 percent). That change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries that were partly offset by a decline in the share of income withheld for taxes. The Internal Revenue Service issued new withholding tables in January 2018 to reflect changes made by the 2017 tax act (Public Law 115-97). All employers were required to begin using the new tables by February 15, 2018. Hence, the new withholding rates were in effect during the first eight months of this fiscal year but for only about half of the same period last year.

Nonwithheld payments of income and payroll taxes rose by $8 billion (or 2 percent).

Income tax refunds were down by $17 billion (or 7 percent), further boosting net receipts.

Unemployment insurance receipts (one kind of payroll tax) declined by $4 billion (or 10 percent). Receipts have fallen each year since peaking in 2012."

So basically refunds were down, wages and salary increases results in the 2% growth in receipts and "The federal budget deficit was $738 billion for the first eight months of fiscal year 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, $206 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last year." So if we do math kids, 206billion - 49billion = 157billion extra in deficit spending even when you take into account the growth in individual taxes. Fantastic.

17 hours ago, Weave said:

I think he got this one correct.  https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Tax revenues went from 3.27T to 3.44T under Trump.  I haven't found anything specifically tying it to any one reason.  It's certainly possible that it is due to current employment levels being higher.  Corporate tax contributions are down 2% so it certainly seems to be an increase in income tax revenues.

So yes, Weave is 100% correct in that there was an increase in individual taxes collected but ... as laid out above that did not offset the cost of the tax cuts. I suppose this is my fault for not really getting at the heart of my issue with the fake tax cut. The heart of the issue is that it greatly increased deficit spending while not offsetting those costs forcing someone else down the road to pay for it. That someone is young people.

[LGR4GM]

I do want to add that I am glad this came up because I learned a lot doing research just now on how these things are calculated and configured. I understand the game behind these cuts better. Sadly sometime in the next decade we will have to redo the tax system again to correct for this or slash spending to extreme levels. Considering how we spend most on healthcare and the military I would guess that other things like education and infrastructure will be cut further, eroding even more of what makes this country what it is. But hey at least the wealth gap continues to increase... Bush, Obama, Trump, none of them seemed to care much about that little problem and the tax cut is only going to make it worse. 

"In fact, the top one percent alone holds more wealth than the middle class. They owned 29 percent—or over $25 trillion—of household wealth in 2016, while the middle class owned just $18 trillion.[iii]

This has not always been the case. Before 2010, the middle class owned more wealth than the top one percent. Since 1995, the share of wealth held by the middle class has steadily declined, while the top one percent’s share has steadily increased.[iv]" 

"While the middle class has seen modest growth of 7 percent in their net worth since 1995, it has not yet recovered to its previous peak in 2007. This tepid recovery is driven by declines in home-ownership and stock market participation since 2007—if you do not hold assets, you cannot benefit from recovery in asset prices.

In contrast, the wealthy have seen robust growth since 1995 and have fully recovered from the Great Recession. Median net worth for the top 80th-99th percentiles has increased by 149 percent since 1995. For the top one percent, it has grown by 187 percent from a far higher base, making it difficult to even see the wealth of the bottom 99 percent on the following chart."

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/25/six-facts-about-wealth-in-the-united-states/

And last but certainly not least, we have the reason I am annoyed.

"These two trends, plus large projected growth in net interest payments, mean that younger families will not only have less wealth but will be expected to pay for debt-financed federal spending that has mainly benefited prior generations.[x]" So thank you baby boomers. Your piss poor stewardship of the economy and the planet means that my kids are certainly *****. As a millennial I know I already am. 

Edited August 27, 2019 by LGR4GM

[5th line wingnutt]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

He didn't rain on my parade. I actually like learning things. I also like how you ignored the rest of my first post where I say I didn't like how Obama handled the recovery by bailing out banks and fatcats.

[snip]

Were the bailouts were done under TARP or the ARRA?

Without regard to what legislation covered the bailouts...I am against bailouts, subsidies, or any form of executive or legislative interference in corporate bankruptcies.

[LGR4GM]

16 hours ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

Were the bailouts were done under TARP or the ARRA?

Without regard to what legislation covered the bailouts...I am against bailouts, subsidies, or any form of executive or legislative interference in corporate bankruptcies.

TARP was passed just before Bush left office (I was surprised, I thought it was done just after Obama took office) and ARRA was done with Obama in office. TARP was the bank bailout and backed by a democratic congress, ARRA was the stimulus package. 

 

How do you feel about the current high rate of subsidies for farmers which are a direct result of the tariffs?

[5th line wingnutt]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

TARP was passed just before Bush left office (I was surprised, I thought it was done just after Obama took office) and ARRA was done with Obama in office. TARP was the bank bailout and backed by a democratic congress, ARRA was the stimulus package. 

 

How do you feel about the current high rate of subsidies for farmers which are a direct result of the tariffs?

I knew ARRA=Stimulus=Obama.  I was only pretty sure about TARP=Bailout=Bush, I was too lazy to look it up.

 

Are farm subsidies directly tied to tariffs?  This is news to me.  I thought the Secretary of Agriculture had some discretion.  I am against farm subsidies, period.

 

This has been fun but it is almost enough for now.  I am working on a response to @Ogre's questions and then I am done for a while.  Been wanting to take a break from the web.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

I knew ARRA=Stimulus=Obama.  I was only pretty sure about TARP=Bailout=Bush, I was too lazy to look it up.

 

Are farm subsidies directly tied to tariffs?  This is news to me.  I thought the Secretary of Agriculture had some discretion.  I am against farm subsidies, period.

 

This has been fun but it is almost enough for now.  I am working on a response to @Ogre's questions and then I am done for a while.  Been wanting to take a break from the web.

 The increase in subsidies is tied to the tariffs

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2019/07/usda-bailout-impact-trump-s-tariffs-goes-biggest-richest-farmers

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-farm-subsidies-farmers-find-ways-to-boost-their-payments/

[Weave]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 The increase in subsidies is tied to the tariffs

https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2019/07/usda-bailout-impact-trump-s-tariffs-goes-biggest-richest-farmers

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-farm-subsidies-farmers-find-ways-to-boost-their-payments/

Yup.  Taxpayers paying for the trade war.

Here's the really funny part.  Follow the money.  We put tariffs on China.  Farmers get subsidies to keep them planting.  How are those subsidy moneys obtained?  Federal bonds.  Who is the largest holder of publicly owned US debt?  Yup.  China.  We're paying China to put tariffs on China.

[SABRES 0311]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Yup.  Taxpayers paying for the trade war.

Here's the really funny part.  Follow the money.  We put tariffs on China.  Farmers get subsidies to keep them planting.  How are those subsidy moneys obtained?  Federal bonds.  Who is the largest holder of publicly owned US debt?  Yup.  China.  We're paying China to put tariffs on China.

You should do a YouTube video. Seriously. 

[drnkirishone]

Confirmed. Weave is on the last week tonight with john Oliver staff.

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, Weave said:

Yup.  Taxpayers paying for the trade war.

Here's the really funny part.  Follow the money.  We put tariffs on China.  Farmers get subsidies to keep them planting.  How are those subsidy moneys obtained?  Federal bonds.  Who is the largest holder of publicly owned US debt?  Yup.  China.  We're paying China to put tariffs on China.

Exactly. And that is why at the heart of it all I don't like Trump. He has no concept of the larger picture. He's a child needing fake instant gratification constantly from his lollipop.

[darksabre]

14 hours ago, Weave said:

Yup.  Taxpayers paying for the trade war.

Here's the really funny part.  Follow the money.  We put tariffs on China.  Farmers get subsidies to keep them planting.  How are those subsidy moneys obtained?  Federal bonds.  Who is the largest holder of publicly owned US debt?  Yup.  China.  We're paying China to put tariffs on China.

And remember, the party of fiscal responsibility is okay with it.

[Sabel79]

17 minutes ago, darksabre said:

And remember, the party of fiscal responsibility is okay with it.

They're only ever pretending to be the party of fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in charge and/or the White House.  Same as it ever was.

[Weave]

13 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

You should do a YouTube video. Seriously. 

I have a face for radio and a voice for silent movies.

edit- and the charisma of a damp mop.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Weave

[LGR4GM]

How much you wanna bet Mara Lago gets tons of federal money after the hurricane while average Americans are told to fix it themselves and it is their fault that their houses are gone? 

[LTS]

On 8/29/2019 at 8:45 AM, LGR4GM said:

Exactly. And that is why at the heart of it all I don't like Trump. He has no concept of the larger picture. He's a child needing fake instant gratification constantly from his lollipop.

Here's the thing. I don't, for a single moment, believe this. Trump is classic misdirection. His public persona can be whatever he wants it to be but the truth is where the money goes. Where's his money? What's his long term payout on this President gig he's got going on?

Does he benefit from Russian and Chinese investments in the future?  Does he benefit short term by tweeting and impacting the markets to gain favor with particular investors?

He may be nothing more than a puppet for those behind the scenes, but he's a great puppet and he's doing great things for them.  We're so preoccupied with Trump that we don't stop to think about what is really going on.

On 8/29/2019 at 9:49 AM, darksabre said:

And remember, the party of fiscal responsibility is okay with it.

And they are all complicit with it... including many from the other party.

The American Public finally got its reality TV in the White House and they are eating it up.

Edited September 1, 2019 by LTS
edited going to doing