Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 472307 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #250 on: September 14, 2015, 09:01:45 AM »
Doug,
Karl Rove needs your contact number. He wants to bring you aboard to attack Trump! 

Funny.  Maybe he already has my number.  :wink:   But I'm not attacking Trump, I'm just taking the time to read him.

National Review, Karl Rove, Townhall, Red State, Club for Growth and Ben Carson are all too far left and not deserving of our trust...  but not Pelosi, Reid and Obama?!

I don't happen to believe Trump will send back all otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens (11 million?) even though he gave us his word.  That removes a major distinction (to me) between Trump and others like Carson and Rubio. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #251 on: September 14, 2015, 09:14:54 AM »

Watch the video interview I posted on Trump. He talks about his position papers and how he cannot be detailed because things change.  What he is doing with his plan for immigration is setting the stage.  Here is the "extreme" position. I want this.  Then after getting in position, negotiations occur.

It is like buying a car. Do you walk into the dealership and say I want this car and this is what I will settle for paying? Or do you "low ball" and negotiate to an acceptable deal? Does the dealership give you its bottom line price? Or does it high ball knowing that you will "want" to negotiate? 

It all marketing.  Reminds me of a class I took in Marketing at Troy State, long ago. The final exam was one essay. How would you market someone  running for "President of the US"? Of course, all of us answered in a more traditional approach for running for President. Wonder what that professor, if still alive, would think of the Trump run?

BTW, this photo gives every reason for voting for Trump. In it, he has his photo taken with his cabinet choices.



PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Donald Trump: The Art of the Bluff , , , overplayed?
« Reply #252 on: September 14, 2015, 09:48:02 AM »
NATIONAL REVIEW
Trump: The Art of the Bluff
By John Fund — September 11, 2015

“I don’t like to analyze myself because I might not like what I see.”
— Donald Trump, in an interview for Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success, by business journalist Michael D’Antonio.

“Trump was willing to say and do almost anything to satisfy his craving for attention. But he also possessed a sixth sense that kept him from going too far.”
— D’Antonio’s conclusion to the book.

One often-underappreciated virtue of U.S. presidential campaigns is that their extreme length makes it very difficult to conceal what makes a candidate tick. (Barack Obama in 2008 was an exception, and he had help from an actively complicit media.)

This reality is finally catching up to Donald Trump.

As good as his “sixth sense” may be, Trump seems unlikely to avoid “going too far” in the long four-month stretch between now and the Iowa caucuses in February.
On Wednesday night, it came to light that Trump had made fun of rival candidate Carly Fiorina’s looks to a Rolling Stone reporter. “Look at that face,” he was overheard to say. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?” Trump now claims he wasn’t talking about Fiorina’s appearance, but her “persona.”

Before the news of his Fiorina remark broke, Trump spoke at an afternoon rally protesting President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and blasted Obama for failing to secure the release of four Americans jailed in the Islamic Republic. Then he misapplied a lesson from history: “If I win the presidency, I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office. I guarantee that. They will be back before I ever take office, because [the Iranians] know what has to happen, okay?”
Trump no doubt remembers that Iran released the hostages it had held for 444 days at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in for his first term as president. But foreign policy experts I’ve spoken to say that for Trump to “guarantee” a similar outcome for the four Americans imprisoned there today will likely lead to one of two disappointing outcomes: a) the Iranians stubbornly refuse to lose face by appearing to knuckle under to Trump; or b) Trump will feel pressure to use military force against Iran after he is sworn in so he won’t lose face.

“Reagan was careful not to comment on the hostages before he became president,” Martin Anderson, his late policy advisor, once told me. “That allowed him to exploit a vacuum and helped bring them home.”

In addition to the nationalistic fervor he can’t help whipping up, much of Trump’s support is predicated on his self-proclaimed genius in business deals. But National Journal reported this week that his business instincts are greatly exaggerated:

If he’d invested the $200 million that Forbes magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into (a mutual fund of S&P 500 stocks), it would have grown to more than $8 billion today. . . . That a purely unmanaged index fund’s return could outperform Trump’s hands-on wheeling and dealing call into question one of Trump’s chief selling points on the campaign trail: his business acumen.

Then there is the matter of Trump’s net worth itself. In June, Trump announced his presidential bid brandishing a document that claimed he was worth more than $8.7 billion. By August, when he filed reports with the Federal Election Commission, the number had ballooned to $10 billion.

#share#The game of hide-and-seek Trump plays with his “billions” was described by Tim O’Brien, a former New York Times reporter, in his 2005 book TrumpNation. The book quoted sources close to Trump as claiming he “was not remotely close to being a billionaire.” Trump promptly sued O’Brien for $5 billion in damages.

During the resultant litigation, O’Brien’s lawyers deposed Trump for two days in 2007. “Among the documents discussed was a Deutsche Bank assessment that pegged Donald’s net worth at $788 million in 2005,” O’Brien recalled in a Bloomberg View article this past July. “At the time, Donald was telling his bankers and casino regulators that he was worth $3.6 billion; he was telling me he was worth $5 billion to $6 billion.”

When Trump was asked about the wide discrepancy between his claimed net worth and the various independent estimates of his wealth, he revealed how his mind works. As D’Antonio reports in the excellent new Never Enough, “[Trump] explained the wide swings as a function of market conditions, and his own sense of the value of his name. This brand valuation — [Trump] estimated it was worth $6 billion.” Trump said in the deposition that the value of his brand “goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.” He then added some thoughts about his net worth:

[Wealth] can change when somebody writes a vicious article like O’Brien. I mean, I didn’t feel so great about myself when I read that article. I would have said that — after reading that article I would have said that this psychologically hurt me.

Trump is perfectly suited for the current media age. He provides enough outrageous quotes and distractions to remain such a source of endless fascination that the press has trouble catching up with his contradictions. D’Antonio says Trump “understood that in the media age, the frontier that might challenge a man or woman was found, not in the wilderness, but in the media. The boundary of this wilderness was marked by propriety, which was an elastic concept.”

Donald Trump has tested the media’s limits of propriety for three decades, and he’s usually succeeded in expanding them.

We will learn in the next four months just how far Trump can expand the equivalent political limits. As much as he may have mastered many of the lessons of the Robert Ringer classic Winning Through Intimidation, he might have forgotten a key one. “The secret to bluffing is knowing when not to bluff,” Ringer told me. “Some people don’t know when to stop, and they always regret it.”

— John Fund is national-affairs columnist for National Review

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #253 on: September 14, 2015, 10:01:37 AM »


John Fund is GOPe. He is supporting the Bush/Rubio wing. Same as the entire National Review, Federalist, Hotair, Powerline and other websites.

I will not bother with things I have responded to before. Just some new stuff going to Brand Value.

Fund talks about what others have said about the Trump net worth and what he claims he is worth. Trump is using GAAP accounting rules, which certainly accepts “brand value”. As for those fools like Fund who don’t thing this is anything, think about this. Trump being in the Fox debate led to 24 million watchers and for a primary debate. Without him, it would have been a miracle to reach 4 million.  That is BRAND VALUE!

BTW, remember “The Pledge”?  All GOP candidates will support each other if elected.  Pataki has already broken ranks with that.

Pat
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: The One Man Road Show of Donald Trump
« Reply #254 on: September 14, 2015, 10:13:53 AM »


The One-Man Roadshow of Donald Trump
Presidential hopeful flies high as rivals’ hostility increases; ‘Everybody who attacks me is doomed’
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump spoke about his tax plan, his rising poll numbers and how he will handle the next phase of his presidential campaign. Photo: Chris Buck for The Wall Street Journal
By
Monica Langley
Sept. 13, 2015 1:23 p.m. ET
555 COMMENTS

NEW YORK— Donald Trump skipped breakfast one recent morning, blow-dried his hair in his Trump Tower penthouse and headed out to his personal Boeing 757 jet, dubbed “Trump Force One” since he emerged as the Republican presidential front-runner.

Seated in his plane’s living room, with its pearlwood and 24-carat gold trim, Mr. Trump worked alone, watching the big-screen TV and reading the day’s political news, mostly about him, with no binders of policy positions or talking points in sight. Upon landing, he waded alone into a throbbing mob desperate for his autograph at a packed Nashville rally.

It all fit the rule for staffers scrawled on a white board at campaign headquarters: “Let Trump Be Trump.”

The 69-year-old billionaire has soared to the top of the Republican field flying solo—a man and his plane, propelled forward by a gust of free media attention and virtually devoid of the staff, position papers, opposition researchers and ad budgets of modern campaigns. Now, though, with the time for summer flings ending and more serious voter examination just ahead, the Trump effort has reached an inflection point, at which he must decide whether he can continue to prosper as this kind of one-man show or whether the time for that is running out.

Travels and extensive conversations with Mr. Trump in recent weeks show that, while he is slowly beginning to bend to some candidate norms—opening state offices, readying ballot-access drives and preparing a tax plan—he continues to resist the experts’ view that he needs a conventional campaign apparatus.

“A lot of what I’m doing is by instinct,” Mr. Trump said in one of several interviews. “I assimilate a lot of information…and I believe in being strategic.” Instead of surrounding himself with what he called “political hacks,” Mr. Trump said, “I don’t need an inner circle.” His rationale: In an “age of specialization, I am tapping phenomenal people in every field.”

His tax plan, likely to come in the next couple of weeks, will reflect this approach. Figuring that “no candidate ever has known the tax code better than I do,” the longtime businessman issued directives: Simplify and cut taxes, help the middle class, solve the problem of corporate “inversions” in which companies move headquarters abroad, and “tax the paper-pushing hedge-fund guys.”

Without much staff, campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has worked with outside advisers to flesh out the details of the tax plan, particularly to end up with a revenue-neutral result that neither raises nor lowers overall receipts. “We’re running an efficient organization with a business mind-set,” Mr. Lewandowski said. “We don’t need high-priced staff or consultants when leading authorities are volunteering to help Mr. Trump.”

Regarding his own tax rate, Mr. Trump said, “I would be happy to pay a lot more if it would help solve our country’s many problems.” He hasn’t released his tax returns but said he definitely would, without specifying when or the number of tax years.

Despite the bare-bones framework he has in place, Mr. Trump vows: “I will build a successful campaign for the long haul…I’ve never lost in my life.”

Republican strategist Kevin Madden said Mr. Trump faces new and serious threats. “One big question is whether he can turn momentum from celebrity fandom into an actual infrastructure to organize voters in cold gymnasiums in the dead of winter in Iowa…Trump hasn’t seen a full-on assault, which is just beginning, with millions of dollars in paid advertising and their relentless attacks.”

Criticism by his opponents is intensifying, calls for him to spell out what policies he believes in are growing, and Mr. Trump is entering the phase of the campaign cycle in which previous early GOP sensations have either faded or crashed.

Mr. Trump is reacting with characteristic bravado. “I hope they attack me, because everybody who attacks me is doomed.”
Surprise success

When he stood in Trump Tower’s marble-and-bronze lobby on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan to announce his long-shot bid in June, few predicted the success Mr. Trump has had, not even him. “I had no idea I would do this well this fast,” he said, particularly after he was pummeled for calling some Mexican illegal immigrants “rapists” and “murderers,” which led Macy’s to drop his clothing line and Univision to end the Spanish broadcast of his Miss Universe pageant.

“The first two weeks were very bad for my brand,” said Mr. Trump, whose Trump Organization line of luxury properties includes hotels, golf courses and both residential and commercial high-rise buildings. In his office on Trump Tower’s 26th floor, the walls, tables and floors brim with testaments to his success—his best-selling books such as “Trump: the Art of the Deal,” magazine covers, the chair from which he told contestants “You’re fired!” on the hit reality-TV show “The Apprentice.”

After that rocky start, his poll numbers rose all summer, shaking up the GOP race and drowning out coverage of other contenders. The presidential bid is turning out to be “very good for the brand,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m No. 1.”

Jenny Beth Martin, chairman of the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, said the appeal is simple: “A lot of what Trump is saying is what many outside of D.C. are thinking.”

With fall arriving, Mr. Lewandowski is building what he calls an “atypical bottom-up model” of a campaign structure that has as many staff members in Iowa as in Trump Tower. “We get zero votes in headquarters,” said Mr. Lewandowski, from the sparse campaign office on the unfinished fifth floor in Trump Tower.

National political director Michael Glassner, who along with Mr. Lewandowski is among the few seasoned campaign operatives on the staff, said he has been Skyping with potential hires and renting space in states based on the electoral map. He is overseeing the nitty-gritty of ballot access in all 50 states and petition drives in the 11 that require voter signatures.

Press secretary Hope Hicks, a onetime Ralph Lauren model who was communications director in the Trump Organization’s real-estate and hotel division, juggles a demanding national press corps and a boss with a penchant for doing his own media. Daniel Scavino, who started as Mr. Trump’s caddie in high school and rose to operate one of his golf clubs, is running social media, in which he has been flooded with résumés and 98,000 messages in a month.
Donald Trump at his campaign headquarters in the Trump Tower in Manhattan, where his staff remains small. ENLARGE
Donald Trump at his campaign headquarters in the Trump Tower in Manhattan, where his staff remains small. Photo: Chris Buck for The Wall Street Journal

When a court overturned the NFL suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady over “deflategate,” Mr. Lewandowski reminded his boss, a friend of the football star, “Don’t forget to tweet how happy you are that Brady is vindicated.” When Mr. Brady gave his first press remarks, a red Trump “Make America Great Again” hat was visible in his locker.

So far, the campaign website holds exactly one position paper, on the candidate’s now-well-known ideas for stopping illegal immigration. Besides a tax plan, Mr. Trump said he would begin releasing proposals on trade, health care and military and veterans issues.

But he added, “People don’t care about seeing plans. They have confidence in me.” There is little sign his is turning into anything like a conventional campaign.

Over Labor Day weekend, Mr. Trump stayed out of sight while other candidates paraded and picnicked in early-primary states, “That’s the exact opposite of what works for you,” Mr. Lewandowski advised Mr. Trump. “We want you where massive numbers of people can hear you and your messages, not a few watching you walk down a street.”

Instead, Mr. Trump huddled with advisers who volunteered to prep him for Wednesday’s debate on military and foreign-policy issues. Mr. Trump said he wasn’t cramming, though: “I’ve been prepping for 30 years.”

He limits his appearances largely to those before big crowds to ensure maximum media coverage. He will speak to about 20,000 in Dallas Monday night and then fly to Los Angeles to address veterans in front of the USS Iowa battleship. After Wednesday’s debate at the Reagan Library, he plans to fly overnight to New Hampshire for a rally in the first primary state.
Donald Trump took WSJ's Monica Langley on a tour of his office in the Trump Tower in Manhattan. Among his memorabilia: one of Shaquille O'Neal's sneakers. Photo: Jarrard Cole/The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Trump’s penchant for mocking opponents in his own party, as well as media figures, shows little sign of abating. Asked about a report of his disparaging former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina with the line “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?” Mr. Trump said: “She’s got the wrong persona. I’m not talking about her looks. She failed miserably at HP and in her Senate race.” Ms. Fiorina later said she didn’t worry about what he meant but suggested she was getting under his skin.

Mr. Trump also has belittled former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s “low energy” style but now says he is losing interest because “Jeb is just single digits” in the polls. Instead, he now directs fire at former neurosurgeon Ben Carson : “Jeb looks like the Energizer bunny compared to him.” Mr. Carson declined to comment; Mr. Bush has said Mr. Trump can’t “insult [his] way to the nomination.”

Sometimes, Mr. Trump simply ignores the conventions. Before the first GOP debate, candidates were invited to go for a walk-through, microphone check and makeup stop. Mr. Trump skipped it all, getting off his plane in time to line up with his rivals right before walking on stage, a campaign aide said.

His circle of outside advisers is equally unorthodox. Mr. Trump recently dined with activist investor Carl Icahn to “energize Carl about dealing with China, Japan and Mexico,” he said. Mr. Icahn hosted the dinner on his apartment terrace and recalls telling Mr. Trump, “You’re striking a nerve with the people who are tired of getting screwed.”

But, Mr. Icahn added, “The rich guys in the Hamptons don’t like you too much.” Mr. Trump’s reply was, “Who cares? They are all giving money to Hillary and Jeb anyway.”

Mr. Trump said he is talking with some of America’s “biggest corporate names and finest negotiators” about renegotiating trade deals and making sure the U.S. isn’t disadvantaged. “I’ll give you each a country” to deal with if he wins, he said he has told them.

Another close adviser is his 33-year-old daughter Ivanka Trump, who oversees Trump Organization real estate and hotel development in addition to heading her apparel and accessories brand. She introduced her father when he announced his candidacy and talks to him several times a day. On Thursday, she stopped by to ask him to meet with a business client in the building.

In the meantime, Ms. Trump’s work leading the renovation of Washington, D.C.’s Old Post Office into a luxury Trump hotel is giving her dad an applause line on the stump: “I got it from the Obama administration—can you believe that? And it’s ahead of schedule and under budget!”
Irked by a sign

One of Mr. Trump’s themes has been his willingness to fund his own campaign while others “take money from lobbyists and special interests.” So when he swooped into Boston recently for an appearance hosted by a local auto magnate, he grew angry at a sign asking for $100 donations at the door to cover the event’s costs, and had his staff remove it. Even so, media reports called the gathering a fundraiser.

On on the flight back, Mr. Trump told his campaign manager, “I’ve turned down a $5 million donation, and then that stupid sign. My trip cost more than the $2,000 raised to cover their food.” Mr. Trump said he has spent around $2 million of his own money to date.

The next day, he headed to Nashville for a rally on his 757, which was largely empty as usual but for his four top campaign aides and five security guards sitting in back. There were no flight attendants or drinks served, but a binder of Miss Universe contestants was stacked in a corner with luxury magazines.

In Nashville, he told the audience, “I’m going to make this country rich again” and joked to them, “I need your friggin’ votes.”

Back home in New York, Mr. Trump said his real-estate business is evolving as he campaigns: “As the days go by, I give more and more to my children to run, and my executives.” His three older children with his first wife, Ivana, run divisions from the 25th floor. His fourth child, with ex-wife Marla Maples, is a student at the University of Pennsylvania, where Mr. Trump graduated from the Wharton School.

After work, he rode the elevator to the 68th floor to the penthouse home, decorated in Louis XIV style, that he shares with wife Melania and their 9-year-old son Barron. He emptied his pockets of germicidal hand wipes and $100 bills he sometimes hands to volunteers on the trail.

He caught up on news and the other candidates’ actions, as well as some of his own speeches recorded by his wife, who is more technologically adept. Mr. Trump doesn’t use a computer. He relies on his smartphone to tweet jabs and self-promotion, often late into the night, from a chaise longue in his bedroom suite in front of a flat-screen TV.

Later, in a rare moment of reflection, he likened being a candidate to the real-estate business and said he considers himself a better builder than marketer:

“Just as I’ve built great buildings that sell themselves, I believe in my product now. I’m prepared that if my truth doesn’t sell, the campaign won’t succeed. As in my buildings and my presidential campaign, the people will buy if they want the product. I don’t have to be the best salesman.”

Write to Monica Langley at monica.langley@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ




Set your profile to public to comment
There are 555 comments.
 


objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
The Left Fears Trump Will Kill Pro-Crime "Reforms"...
« Reply #255 on: September 14, 2015, 11:58:11 AM »
LEFT FEARS TRUMP COULD STOP REPUBLICANS FROM PRO-CRIME "REFORMS"

Norquist getting a bloody nose is always a good thing

September 14, 2015  Daniel Greenfield   


Trump is bad news at Koch HQ for a long list of reasons. One of them is the shameful alliance with the left to free drug dealers could be in big trouble.

  Criminal justice reform, a perennial lost cause for civil rights lefties, had its surprise bipartisan moment this year. Conservative Republican voices like antitax activist Grover   
  Norquist and the Koch brothers led campaigns against mass incarceration and mandatory drug sentences. GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Rick Perry have
  embraced the pro-reform Right on Crime initiative, while Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have co-sponsored reform bills with liberal Democratic senators.

   But the Kumbaya reform moment may not survive the Summer of Trump...

Good.

It was sickening to see so many Republicans pen pieces for the Brennan Center. And Norquist getting a bloody nose is always a good thing.

Backing amnesty for drug dealers was even crazier than backing amnesty for illegal aliens. And it was a testament to how far the conservative movement had gone off the rails that so many of the candidates had even signed on to it. And that some conservative sites still continue to promote "sentencing reform".

This is one of the few areas where New York City conservatives get it more than a lot of the Red State conservatives do. Because out here you have to live with it. It's not some hypothetical problem that happens a hundred miles away.

New York City conservatism is often weak in other areas, but it's tough on crime. Which is bad news for Rand Paul, the Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist who formed a bizarre alliance with the ACLU to give the pro-crime group everything it wants without actually getting anything in return.

The rest of this reads like a wish list for an angry base lashing out at the establishment. Killing TPP and Common Core top the list.

Rick Perry is gone now. Jeb Bush is in big trouble. Rand Paul's campaign is flailing badly. Scott Walker's Brennan Center piece skipped freeing drug dealers and actually offered some useful conservative solutions. That leaves fewer options for the pro-crime crowd. And that's the way it should be.

Republicans should not be pushing pro-crime policies.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #256 on: September 14, 2015, 01:51:21 PM »
"John Fund is GOPe. He is supporting the Bush/Rubio wing. Same as the entire National Review, Federalist, Hotair, Powerline and other websites."

Bush and Rubio are not at all the same to me and they were running against each other before this became all about Donald.  I post from Powerline here (and have contributed there).  John Hinderaker and Steve Hayward in particular make a lot of sense to me.  Powerline ripped Rubio mercilessly over immigration in at least a dozen posts by Paul Mirengoff, some linked below, and no one there supports Jeb, fyi.  GM links to Hotair quite quite a bit.  There is not a great deal of general election political space to the right of our GM, I am afraid to say.  It is better if we judge specific content rather than just label and exclude authors and entire publications, IMHO.  

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/marco-rubios-embarrassing-appearance-on-fox-news-part-one.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/how-chuck-schumer-ran-rings-around-marco-rubio.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/marco-rubio-our-republican-says-chuck-schumer-and-with-good-reason.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/rubio-surges-but-tough-questions-about-immigration-linger.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/the-case-against-marco-rubio.php

One pro-Trump photo (from Powerline):

« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 02:04:32 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #257 on: September 14, 2015, 02:02:16 PM »
Powerline is owned by Salem, which is in the tank for Bush.

As to Bush and Rubio, I must ask:

What is the "payoff" to Rubio for running? Here is why I ask:

1. Rubio is a sitting Senator, who is up for election. If he is so strong, then he could get easily reelected.

2. Bush has been the "chosen one" since last year. Until Trump, he was the overwhelming favorite to win.

3. Rubio knew that Bush was the Chosen One.  Why would he announce to run when it was "obvious" at the time that Bush would be the one? Did he know something that Bush did not know?

4. Why would Rubio "stab" Bush in the back by announcing?

5. What is the benefit to Bush by Rubio  running?  (It splits anti Bush voters.)

This does not make any sense at all unless Rubio has been promised something. Why would he give up a sure thing for nothing?

Also, the key criteria for me, immigration, both are alike. And both are supported by the GOPe.

If a person does not accept the idea that the GOPe is looking to do anything to key Bush or another "favored son" in the running, while keeping control of the party and going against the wishes of the base.


PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #258 on: September 14, 2015, 02:29:09 PM »
Powerline is owned by Salem, which is in the tank for Bush.

As to Bush and Rubio, I must ask:

What is the "payoff" to Rubio for running? Here is why I ask:

1. Rubio is a sitting Senator, who is up for election. If he is so strong, then he could get easily reelected.

2. Bush has been the "chosen one" since last year. Until Trump, he was the overwhelming favorite to win.

3. Rubio knew that Bush was the Chosen One.  Why would he announce to run when it was "obvious" at the time that Bush would be the one? Did he know something that Bush did not know?

4. Why would Rubio "stab" Bush in the back by announcing?

5. What is the benefit to Bush by Rubio  running?  (It splits anti Bush voters.)

This does not make any sense at all unless Rubio has been promised something. Why would he give up a sure thing for nothing?

Also, the key criteria for me, immigration, both are alike. And both are supported by the GOPe.

If a person does not accept the idea that the GOPe is looking to do anything to key Bush or another "favored son" in the running, while keeping control of the party and going against the wishes of the base.

Rubio is running to win, IMHO.  If they are the same as you say, he splits the Bush vote, not the anti-Bush vote.  The Rubio view no doubt is that Jeb and others are splitting HIS vote.  Jeb isn't going to win; maybe Rubio was first to know that.  I think the publications you list know that.  I don't see anyone breaking their back for him.  The game theory aspects of why so many are running and splitting different votes I'm afraid have not been fully contemplated by any of the candidates - except for Trump who instantly capitalized on that.

Every Senator thinks they should be President.  Not many have won a swing state by a million votes.  Rubio believes we aren't going to have a country to save if he waits for 'his turn' or for someone else to do it.  When Bernie, Biden, Hillary or Grandma Warren reach out for the youth vote, they will have to reach about 40 years back.  I would love to see Rubio go head to head with any of them.  Unlike Trump importing his third trophy wife, Rubio is stuck with his first wife, high school sweetheart, (Miami Dophins cheerleader), mother of his children.  NY Times photo:

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Wall Street Panic: Trump Could Actually Win...
« Reply #259 on: September 14, 2015, 06:17:08 PM »
Very interesting.  Telling that no one would go on the record criticizing Trump.  This tells me these Wall Street executives believe Trump is quite serious about what he says:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/donald-trump-2016-wall-street-reaction-213614

« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 06:20:06 PM by objectivist1 »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #260 on: September 14, 2015, 06:44:27 PM »
Doug:

Shouldn't that be in the Rubio thread?

====================================

The search for chinks in Trump's teflon armor continue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/was-donald-trumps-education-venture-trump-university-a-scam/2015/09/13/299ed9c8-52c0-11e5-933e-7d06c647a395_story.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Nate Silver on Donald Trump's chances
« Reply #261 on: September 16, 2015, 09:00:55 AM »
Nate Silver, who was the whiz kid of Obama era poll analysis, says Trump has about a 5% chance of winning Republican nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/15/nate_silver_trump_has_about_5_chance_of_winning.html

This should be an easy one for pp to shoot down.  )
-------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Beck (already discredited?) explains his view that since Obama and Trump are offering many of the same empty platitudes, those members of the Tea Party who claim to oppose Obama and support Trump might be the actual racists in the GOP.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/16/glenn_beck_if_you_hate_obama_and_love_trump_you_might_be_a_racist_they_are_the_same.html

This is why I don't like blanket generalities.  Trump is not like Obama but is using the blank canvas strategy of letting the voters paint their own picture of how great he will make America. 
-------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Republican establishment group, Club for Growth, has an anti-Trump ad running based on the Kelo decision.  Kelo to the regular voter is just some obscure, inside baseball, Supreme Court decision of the past until someone puts it in front of them, explains it and spells out the consequences of it.  This is a very powerful argument to those who are not fans of big, powerful, crony government.
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/15/video-club-for-growth-ad-slams-trump-as-just-another-politician/

Still waiting for an explanation from Trump (or pp) as to how we can enjoy the benefits of having our government redirect the ownership of private property for the greater good, (defined by them) without inviting abuse of that power.  Why have private ownership if government knows the best use?

Watch for a debate question on this tonight.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #262 on: September 16, 2015, 09:25:23 AM »
Doug,

Working on a few other things right now, but in regards to Kelo.

Conneticutt law states that Eminent Domain can be used to take private property when in the best interest of the public domain. This was much of the basis for the USOC upholding the case.

Now as to your comment about "eminent domain and use of government power". Since Kelo came down, the anti Kelo forces decried the ruling, stating that it would open the door for massive Eminent Domain abuse across the country. Can you please point out where this has occurred? I must have missed it otherwise.

And in the case of Richmond, Camden and other hard hit foreclosure cities where I actually changed my mind to support ED, the Congress stepped in and enacted legislation to stop it from going forward.

I hear from all sides about how if such and such is allowed, it will open the gates for all sorts of abuses. But it never seems to happen. Heck, so far with the Qualified Mortgage, I  thought that lending for the GSEs would be loosened almost immediately so that anyone could again obtain a loan as long as a person was breathing. So far, it is only occurring with FHA (and at least 98.6) and not the GSEs. 

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump and the reverse Robin Hood effect
« Reply #263 on: September 16, 2015, 11:23:21 AM »
pp:  "Doug,  Can you please point out where this has occurred? I must have missed it otherwise."


Yes.  1) It happened to us in Minneapolis.  PPL ("Project for Pride in Living") a phony, government "non-profit" used the City of Minneapolis Takings Power to take an apartment building from us instead of procuring it the old fashioned, consensual way.  The corrupt, quasi-government group advances "affordable housing" by kicking out low income tenants.  Go figure.  http://www.ppl-inc.org/

2) Minneapolis took prime, private, downtown properties to give title to preferred donor, Target, instead of making them buy it the old fashioned way, with the consent of the sellers.  Target is now facing major layoffs - just like 3) the Kelo house is an empty field.

4) In the suburbs here across from Mall of America, the City of Richfield forced out private businesses to make way for their preferred use, a new Best Buy headquarters.  Then the Best Buy chief left in a sex scandal and the company faces major layoffs.  Smart planning at its best.

5) Cconstruction of Coors field was almost complete before the City of Denver completed the taking of the real estate where home plate sits.  Take from a little old lady and to give to Major League Baseball.  Source: WSJ.  They didn't have to buy it or even try to entice her to sell because they are a preferred, private use.  They faced no backlash because everyone except the owner of the property preferred the new private use.

Just some examples I am aware of, all but one local.  I'm sure it goes on nationwide.  Because the mainstream media doesn't cover it doesn't mean that crony government companies aren't using their 1% leverage to bully ordinary people all the time:  Buy at our price or we will have government take it for us and you will get less - after lengthy and expensive court battles.

Victims of takings are paid their "value" calculated by looking back out the rear view mirror, but people hold an investment based on their projection of future value.  In these case of takings, the owner gets old value and the new owners takes the new value difference to the bank.  In our case, we held something for decades to get cheated out of ever receiving its real, intrinsic value, the reason for holding it all those years.  

The controlling authority of taking private property in America is not Connecticut law; it is the U.S. constitution.  Please see the multiple dissents in Kelo already posted here and in 'Constitutional Issues'.

Politically, having the Republican standard bearer take the crony government side boosts the standing of phony advocates of the little guy like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.  The leftist justices favored it and the conservative justices opposed it.  Spineless Kennedy joined the left.  We will lose the general election over things like this when R's get caught supporting economic cronyism while the Dems (say they) support the little guy.

If Trump doesn't see the wrongness in this after doing it, and is inclined to make Supreme Court appointments in the direction of expanding government power and diminishing individual liberty as basic as private property rights, then I will do what I can to stop him.  I'll check back with you on this after the developers take your house or business without your consent.  

A corrupt third world kleptocracy is what you have after private property rights lose their meaning.  Don't go there.

Here is that GOP establishment puppet, Heritage Foundation, caught reading the forum:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/a-decade-after-kelo-time-for-congress-to-protect-american-property-owners
Cronyism at Its Worst. A developer can use the government as its middleman to seize properties and avoid paying what likely would be their true costs. Cronyism is bad enough when favors are provided to politically connected interests through subsidies and other special treatment. Kelo has made it easy for government officials to benefit their friends and politically connected businesses using the awesome power of eminent domain. A family’s home could be demolished and their property rights trampled to help a developer. On top of that, the government can use this power in a haphazard manner, with the court unlikely to question the merits of the takings, regardless of how unnecessary or poorly conceived the takings might be.

pp, An aside for the housing thread:  I am right that the loan default use of this that you pointed to is way of treating the symptom, not the problem, of lenders being blocked by government from their necessary, contractual right to take back property when the required payments are not made?  Why not fix the problem instead of committing additional crime in the coverup?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2015, 11:29:10 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #264 on: September 16, 2015, 11:44:40 AM »
Okay, it has happened. I stand corrected.

But as I have said previously, each case must be determined on the merits of the situation. If one person holds up what is truly a beneficial action for the entire community, should the project be canned just for that?

These are not black and white "property rights" decisions. There are huge grey areas, and all factors must be considered.

As to whether the compensation was correct or not, that is a grey area also.  I know because I do damage calculations in homeowner litigation cases all the time, once per week, sometimes more. I do commercial as well.

It is not simply a matter of saying that this was the worth of a property or the damages suffered by the person was such and such an amount. Every scenario must be examined, the circumstances related to each scenario considered, and then an assessment made as to damages or net worth.

I have had many times where someone thought the value of an action or damage would be one amount, and when reviewed, it was half or less of what they believed, and in some cases, there were no warranted damages. I have also arrived at values or damages 3 to 5 times what was believed.

The same would be true of Eminent Domain cases, values or damages.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #265 on: September 16, 2015, 12:08:52 PM »
Thanks Pat. 

Where you see grey, I see right and wrong.  It isn't for the somewhat rare one who is taken from that we look out for their interest.  It is for all of us.

It isn't just for the .0047% of us that get murdered each year that we maintain all these laws, police, courts and prisons.  It is for all of us.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #266 on: September 16, 2015, 12:52:39 PM »
Do you see any time when Eminent Domain is warranted? And under what circumstances?

You see black and white on Eminent Domain, but look at the 2nd Amendment. You have said that you are against felons and the mentally disturbed from having access to them, so there, you are seeing grey.

Even where the Constitution is involved, things are never black and white, but are open to interpretation.

I am "torn" with regards to the Constitution and also with the current laws and even court rulings.  I don't believe in the concept of the Living Constitution, but at the same time I recognize that the 1780's and the 2010's are entirely different times. The difference in the times and technology must necessarily mean that there must be some mitigation on past rulings and considerations.

For example, I wrote in one article in 2010 that Innovation and Technology "leads" the law. What I said was that with the innovation of new financial instruments like mortgage backed securities and the development of MERS, the current laws were not prepared for the innovations. As a result, the changes must be litigated out and a new understanding reached upon what is proper, applicable, and lawful or not.

The same goes for the changes that we see in society as a whole. Let's take my favorite example, building a new  freeway, or in the case of LA, a new subway system. The new freeway would certainly be a benefit, taking two parts of a city and bringing them closer in travel time, expense and other factors. It could reduce travel time across the city from 1 hour to 10 minutes, increase business viability and commercial pursuits that otherwise would not exist.

500 homes have to be purchased for the new freeway. 495 homeowners are willing to sell. The others have no desire to sell and will not. The lack of a freeway does not bother them, they are retired and do not work, and have no reason for traveling to the other side of the city. What is the solution?

Black and white, nothing gets done. The city does not get the freeway, business and commercial opportunities are lost, and people do not have the convenience and loss of time and gas money for the lost ease of travel.

Grey, and eminent domain is used. The benefits occur to the city, the people and business, at the detriment of 5 homeowners, who will almost always get some compensation for their properties at a minimum.

Which is better?

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #267 on: September 16, 2015, 02:29:16 PM »
The distinction here is the taking of private land for other, private ownership.  The power of the govt to take for public facilities like freeways, with compensation, is certainly constitutional, whether I like it or not.

The distinction is gradually lost as we nationalize all industries.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Trump's Position Paper on Gun Control
« Reply #269 on: September 18, 2015, 01:26:26 PM »
Trump just released a position paper on gun control.  Now, even Doug can show his support.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #270 on: September 25, 2015, 11:07:16 AM »
From the Walker thread.  PP writes:

"As well, it is only the more wonkish who want the details. Everyone else wants the "hope" that he can do something no one else will do."

We will see if simply getting up on stage for the next year plus and saying I am at such and such percent and he or she is only such and such percent and I want to make America great again will be enough.

I want a warrior too.  But just being bombastic alone at this point makes me nervous.

I would have to say it is between Rubio and Trump for at this point.  I would like Cruz or Jindal but their chances are pretty low to zero I am afraid.

Fiorina gives me the willies fro some reason.  I actually trust Trump more than I trust her.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #271 on: September 25, 2015, 12:47:29 PM »
Now, in all fairness to the other candidates, Trump does need to:

1. Quit bashing Fox and Meghan Kelly at every slight. It is getting old. I understand why he does it, but he needs to reduce the bashing.

2. It is fine to attack the other candidates, but again, he needs to reduce the personal attacks. It will backfire at some point, and probably already is.

3. He should be a bit more specific on plans, but only in a general sense.He should not release too much detail for TMI gives ammo to attack him.

Now, Bush has been generally marginalized. Rubio must be marginalized now since he is about the last GOPe candidate standing with a chance, unless one considers Kasich. And, he must watch for a push by the GOPe for Romney to enter. (Yes, there is talk of all things. And if the GOPe pushes Romney, it shows just how pathetic the party is, and how it is owned by the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street.)

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump Tax Plan
« Reply #272 on: September 28, 2015, 08:31:29 AM »
Here is the Trump Tax Plan.

TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Tax Plan

Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.
Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.
Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.
Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.
The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.
No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.
The Trump Tax Plan Is Revenue Neutral

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes available to the very rich.
A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad.
Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.

DETAILS OF DONALD J. TRUMP’S TAX PLAN

America needs a bold, simple and achievable plan based on conservative economic principles. This plan does that with needed tax relief for all Americans, especially the working poor and middle class, pro-growth tax reform for all sizes of businesses, and fiscally responsible steps to ensure this plan does not add to our enormous debt and deficit.

This plan simplifies the tax code by taking nearly 50% of current filers off the income tax rolls entirely and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to four for everyone else. This plan also reduces or eliminates loopholes used by the very rich and special interests made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rates on individuals and companies.

The Trump Tax Plan: A Simpler Tax Code For All Americans

When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.

For those Americans who will still pay the income tax, the tax rates will go from the current seven brackets to four simpler, fairer brackets that eliminate the marriage penalty and the AMT while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II:

Income Tax Rate   Long Term Cap Gains/ Dividends Rate             Single Filers               Married Filers                           Heads of Household
0%                                0%                                                       $0 to $25,000                   $0 to $50,000                        $0 to $37,500
10%                                0%                                                $25,001 to $50,000   $50,001 to $100,000                     $37,501 to $75,000
20%                               15%                                              $50,001 to $150,000   $100,001 to $300,000                   $75,001 to $225,000
25%                               20%                                              $150,001 and up            $300,001 and up                   $225,001 and up

With this huge reduction in rates, many of the current exemptions and deductions will become unnecessary or redundant. Those within the 10% bracket will keep all or most of their current deductions. Those within the 20% bracket will keep more than half of their current deductions. Those within the 25% bracket will keep fewer deductions. Charitable giving and mortgage interest deductions will remain unchanged for all taxpayers.

Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American’s taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth.

Business Tax Reform To Encourage Jobs And Spur Economic Growth

Too many companies – from great American brands to innovative startups – are leaving America, either directly or through corporate inversions. The Democrats want to outlaw inversions, but that will never work. Companies leaving is not the disease, it is the symptom. Politicians in Washington have let America fall from the best corporate tax rate in the industrialized world in the 1980’s (thanks to Ronald Reagan) to the worst rate in the industrialized world. That is unacceptable. Under the Trump plan, America will compete with the world and win by cutting the corporate tax rate to 15%, taking our rate from one of the worst to one of the best.

This lower tax rate cannot be for big business alone; it needs to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. Right now, freelancers, sole proprietors, unincorporated small businesses and pass-through entities are taxed at the high personal income tax rates. This treatment stifles small businesses. It also stifles tax reform because efforts to reduce loopholes and deductions available to the very rich and special interests end up hitting small businesses and job creators as well. The Trump plan addresses this challenge head on with a new business income tax rate within the personal income tax code that matches the 15% corporate tax rate to help these businesses, entrepreneurs and freelancers grow and prosper.

These lower rates will provide a tremendous stimulus for the economy – significant GDP growth, a huge number of new jobs and an increase in after-tax wages for workers.

The Trump Tax Plan Ends The Unfair Death Tax

The death tax punishes families for achieving the American dream. Therefore, the Trump plan eliminates the death tax.

The Trump Tax Plan Is Fiscally Responsible

The Trump tax cuts are fully paid for by:

Reducing or eliminating deductions and loopholes available to the very rich, starting by steepening the curve of the Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Pease Limitation on itemized deductions. The Trump plan also phases out the tax exemption on life insurance interest for high-income earners, ends the current tax treatment of carried interest for speculative partnerships that do not grow businesses or create jobs and are not risking their own capital, and reduces or eliminates other loopholes for the very rich and special interests. These reductions and eliminations will not harm the economy or hurt the middle class. Because the Trump plan introduces a new business income rate within the personal income tax code, they will not harm small businesses either.

A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate. Since we are making America’s corporate tax rate globally competitive, it is only fair that corporations help make that move fiscally responsible. U.S.-owned corporations have as much as $2.5 trillion in cash sitting overseas. Some companies have been leaving cash overseas as a tax maneuver. Under this plan, they can bring their cash home and put it to work in America while benefitting from the newly-lowered corporate tax rate that is globally competitive and no longer requires parking cash overseas. Other companies have cash overseas for specific business units or activities. They can leave that cash overseas, but they will still have to pay the one-time repatriation fee.

An end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. Corporations will no longer be allowed to defer taxes on income earned abroad, but the foreign tax credit will remain in place because no company should face double taxation.

Reducing or eliminating some corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump Tax Plan
« Reply #273 on: September 28, 2015, 09:35:50 AM »
Thanks PP for getting this posted so quickly.

I approve of this plan - it is far better than the status quo.

It moves Trump out of the fog and into clarity as a serious candidate.  We will see how well he can sell it and how what kind of opposition he runs into.

There is a chasm between Trump's earlier rhetoric and this plan.  A person making 150k, pretty normal pay among my contemporaries, pays at the same rate as the guy making trillions.  I'm okay with that but it is Trump who has to explain it to the liberal, redistributionist, mainstream media.  I hope that goes well for him.

The thing he gets wrong is to repeat Reagan's mistake:

"If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each."

That sounds great for selling the plan.  Reagan used the same line.  The problem is that adding 75 million workers to the 94 million adults who don't work at all makes two thirds of the electorate who don't have a stake whatsoever in the size, scope or cost of government.  That model doesn't work for governing.  We need more stakeholders.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #274 on: September 28, 2015, 09:49:51 AM »
On first glance, a serious and interesting plan.

Some questions:

"A one-time deemed repatriation of corporate cash held overseas at a significantly discounted 10% tax rate, followed by an end to the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad."

MD:  Not sure what this means.  

"Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income."

MD:  The devil will be in the details here.

"We will also phase in a reasonable cap on the deductibility of business interest expenses."

MD:  I look forward to reading serious analyses of this.

Also, I heartily second Doug's concerns about greatly increasing the numbers of people who don't have a direct stake in limiting government.  Contrast Ben Carson with his everyone pays the same %.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 09:52:28 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #275 on: September 28, 2015, 10:13:38 AM »
Doug,

In theory, I would agree about people having a stake in the game. But from a practical point, I have to bring in my own observations in the last three years.

One of the models that I have built for lending purposes is an Ability to Repay model. It is far more extensive than what lenders currently use and in the case of first time home buyers, it evaluates both prior to purchase and after purchase financial status. To validate the model, I used over 8 million GSE loans. Here is what I know that is applicable to Trump's Tax Plan.

1. $25k per year for a single person is equivalent to just over $2k per month. Forgoing TRS taxes, but leaving in state and FICA, figure about 10% deductions would still remain. Figure $1,900 per month for living expenses for a single person. From that amount of money, subtract:

Health Care expenses
Rent
Utilities
Food Costs
Auto Payment
Auto Expenses
Insurance
Phone/Other
Child Support
Misc Expenses

The end result is that a single person is left with very little income per month for savings or other emergencies. Now, if that person has a child or children, there is nothing left over. Take out even a small amount of taxes, and the situation becomes much worse.

2. For the $50k for married filers, the same as above will apply in most cases. Though After Deduction Income increases, so do living expenses because these are going to be families in most cases, with extended costs, especially since these will also be two car families, and will have additional costs associated with having children.

The simple fact is that most of these people will be subjected to remaining in the lower income classes no matter what.

The $50k to $100k bracket is worrisome. People at the lower level of $50k will pay 10% or $5k. (But people at $49k will pay nothing.) There are going to be problems with meeting expenses for these people.

The plan is a good start, but it is going to require a lot of tweeking, adjustments, and likely "tax deductions" at the lower income levels in the $50k brackets.

Simplify the tax code? Yes, especially at the upper levels. It will eliminate large portions of the code and hopefully put a lot of tax attorneys and tax accountants out of business, as well as reducing the IRS personnel levels and budget.

It will certainly benefit businesses and hopefully allow them to flourish. Maybe it will bring back the overseas inversion money as well.

It shall be interesting to see what the pundits will say.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #276 on: September 28, 2015, 10:22:04 AM »
CD,

Your first question refers to those businesses in the US with overseas operations. They have tons of cash held overseas and that if they bring the cash back to the US, the funds are taxed at extreme rates, over 28% and it may be much higher. So the money stays overseas and does not benefit US interests. By reducing the tax down to 10%, this would bring the funds back into the US for our own purposes. (Some have said offer no taxes on the return, but that will never fly.)

As to corporate loopholes, etc., you are correct. The devil is in the details. Already, that is why the hedge funds are against Trump due to his desire to eliminate the Carried Interest rule.

As to everyone paying their fair share, I point to what I wrote below. We tend to forget how little $25k per year of income is. Yet there is a huge portion of adults who make that little of gross income. I see it all the time. So when living expenses are factored in, there "ain't" much if anything left over.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #277 on: September 28, 2015, 10:48:04 AM »
Just another comment:

On the Tax Brackets, I screwed up. I made the assumption that the brackets would "not be marginal" in calculating income. If they are "marginal" then going into the $50k bracket would not involve the $49,999 amount being taxed at the greater amount.

The more I look at it, the better I like it.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #278 on: September 28, 2015, 11:32:17 AM »
" $25k per year for a single person is equivalent to just over $2k per month. Forgoing TRS taxes, but leaving in state and FICA, figure about 10% deductions would still remain. Figure $1,900 per month for living expenses for a single person. From that amount of money, subtract:

Health Care expenses
Rent
Utilities
Food Costs
Auto Payment
Auto Expenses
Insurance
Phone/Other
Child Support
Misc Expenses

The end result is that a single person is left with very little income per month for savings or other emergencies. Now, if that person has a child or children, there is nothing left over. Take out even a small amount of taxes, and the situation becomes much worse."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

All true, but that doesn't address my objection.

There are many ways to get to income just under 25k/yr.  Here is one example:  50 hours/wk x 50 weeks/yr x $10 = 25,000
So the under 25k bracket is for people working very hard, sometimes 2 jobs or more PT jobs at near minimum wage.
God Bless them.
We also learned that 12% of minimum wage workers live at or below the poverty line as a household.
Young workers often share living expenses with family or friends until they are able to make it on their own or marry.
For older workers making not much above minimum wage, sharing a household with family or friends is also common or necessary.
A married couple and a single person pay roughly the same rent or house payment.
No one is saying the low end or starter level of income affords one his or her own house.
Yet we let them lower income earners live in America and vote equally with everyone else. 
So give them SOME stake in income and expenses of running our government.
My 2 cents.  )

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #279 on: September 28, 2015, 11:36:01 AM »
Thank you for fleshing that out Pat.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #280 on: September 28, 2015, 12:08:08 PM »
Doug,

They will still pay Federal Taxes in one way or another. Gas taxes, FCC communication taxes and others will still apply. Plus they will be paying state and local taxes. So it is not as if they are getting anything for free.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #281 on: September 28, 2015, 02:25:17 PM »
Doug,
They will still pay Federal Taxes in one way or another. Gas taxes, FCC communication taxes and others will still apply. Plus they will be paying state and local taxes. So it is not as if they are getting anything for free.

Pat,  All true.  I'm not saying this group is under-taxed.  I'm saying they are being sold on the idea that they can get something (everything) for nothing and Trump is perpetuating that.  Note the way he is selling his plan by highlighting its worst feature (IMO), playing on gullability and false populism.

Just within your list, (Health Care expenses, Rent, Utilities, Food Costs, Auto Payment, Auto Expenses, Insurance, Phone/Other, Child Support, Misc Expenses), government is driving up the base cost by possibly double with hidden taxes including the tax of over-regulation.  My home phone tax was 60% by the time I let it go.  No one with a low income could pay that; instead they are offered a cell phone for free.  We could have removed the outdated tax instead but didn't.  Go figure.

After all the government escalation of basic living costs, housing, healthcare, college, etc., lower income people are sold the false promise that someone else will pay their basic living expenses, from cell phones, to healthcare, to transportation, to child care, with no end in sight. 

Democrats drive up the 'demand' for services and Republicans keep driving up the idea that people don't have to pay in at all, much less their fair share.

The federal income tax is a big deal and the state income taxes are based mostly on the same formula.  The whole payroll tax / social security system is another can of worms, and excise taxes, but no one is going there yet.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #282 on: September 28, 2015, 02:57:13 PM »
So if Trump proposes an income tax on those who do not now pay, how does he get elected?

As to whether the other taxes lie, incremental steps. It cannot all come at once.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #283 on: September 28, 2015, 03:33:44 PM »
"So if Trump proposes an income tax on those who do not now pay, how does he get elected?"

I'm not the one pretending to be a straight talker beholden to no one.  If you're going to buy off 75 million votes (or households as they keep mixing up the terms), just say so.

Another approach would be to do no harm.

Reagan made a mistake on immigration and Trump learned from it.

Reagan made this same exact mistake, bragging that he would take millions of Americans off the tax roll altogether, and it grew to DOMINATE our politics.  Everything about Obama and Hillary in campaign mode is to grow services and make you think someone else will pay for it.  Trump is happy to open that hole even wider, not because it's right, but as you say, to get elected.

To answer your question, YES, he could say that every dollar of income is going to face SOME tax, and that if you need help from the government - that needs to be dealt with on the spending side.  At a bare minimum, the stated goal could be to not tax your first dollars of income so that people will move up and out of low income status, not to avoid taxes altogether (YOU WIN??!!).  Under pro-growth policies, we have seen 86% of low income people move out of that status with 10 years.  It is counter-productive IMHO to ask people to support this with the static economic idea that 75 million 'benefit' from this because of their (presumed permanent) low income status.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 03:44:24 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #284 on: September 28, 2015, 03:49:02 PM »
A line from radio this morning "I liked it better when it was Obama's tax plan".

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #285 on: September 28, 2015, 03:52:47 PM »
lol.........tax everyone something, and for those who cannot make it, address that on the spending side. Will that not probably increase those on some form of the dole even more?

For single people earning $25k or less, that is $12.50 per hour. Large numbers of these people will be moving up on the scale as they age and become more productive. For filing Married and the $50k, there would be more reason to your argument, especially if no children are present.

Look, this is a beginning to what is ultimately needed to be done. But to implement even this, one must get elected.

I am likely very biased on this because I deal daily with people in a position where due to the economy, they have lost well paying jobs and just are struggling to make things work. I see people working 2-3 jobs just to get by. Others working in chain grocery stores with a union making $14.50 per hour, and that is all that they have coming in.

G-d, I am sounding now like a progressive and that is scary, but imo opinion, we have to look at these things in a more realistic view of whether a person or family can survive or not. I have just seen too much in the last eight years to take a hard nosed view that everyone must pay some income taxes to ensure that they are contributing, especially since there are so  many other ways that they do pay and contribute.

I guess that we will just disagree on this........like on other things.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #286 on: September 28, 2015, 03:53:23 PM »
Others are saying that it was more like Reagan's..........
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #287 on: September 28, 2015, 04:23:13 PM »
Here is an actual file I have been working on today. It is a family of 4 with the 2 kids in school with Gross Income yearly almost $48k. These numbers are typical expenses for a family of four. They have a home, but the total monthly payment is less than $800 per month. (They live in North Dakota.) They cannot rent for less than that. With current taxes and deductions, they have negative cash flow. (Imagine if they were living here in CA and what the expenses would be.)

Gross Income                $3,944
Net Income                   $2,958

Debt Service
1st Mtg                        $   588
Taxes & Ins                  $   175   
Installment/Car             $   309
Total Debt                    $1,072

Disposable Income      $1,886

Expenses
Utilities                        $325
Water/Sew/Trash         $100
Food                           $750
Phone/Int/Cable           $118
Cell                             $  85
Auto Exp                     $300
Household                     $75
Clothing                      $125
Medical Ins                 $425
Auto Ins                      $ 85
Life Ins                       $  55

Total Exp                   $2,443

Residual Income       $   -557   

This family was one of those who lost jobs in the 2008 recession. They managed to find other jobs, but again, those jobs died as well. They both work in the service sector now, and they exist only by using up all of their savings over the last five years.

This is your $48k per year family. Imagine if it was $35k where they would be. One could argue that they could further cut expenses, but how much more can reasonably cut? Not much, maybe a couple of hundred.

This is not an unusual occurrence. In fact, it is extremely common for almost all under the Medium Income that the government so proudly announces. The truth is that this country is so screwed for the real middle class working man earning under $50k per year.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #288 on: September 28, 2015, 06:06:47 PM »
A fair point, reasonably argued.

Also a fair point are the risks of increasing the moral hazard of voters to a full 50% of the voting population.

Separately, is it true the Trump has come out for single payer?!?!?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #289 on: September 28, 2015, 06:43:08 PM »
Single Payer, no.

He is promoting mostly private plans, with something throw in otherwise.

Here is something to consider..................

Obamacare did exactly what the Dems wanted. That was to destroy the Insurance Industry as it stood at the time. They have totally achieved that through:

1. Increased premiums for those with private plans.

2. Increased deductables across the board.

3. Loss of competition.

4. Restricted plans that limit doctor choice.

5. Massive numbers of newly insured, through Federal subsidies.

6. Increased Medicaid at the State level.

Essentially, Obama destroyed health care in the US.

What is the solution? For the Dems, it was to ultimately transition to Single Payer. Let the system fail and the people would demand Single Payer. But, that will not be accomplished without a Dem Congress and President.

What is the practical solution? With the destruction of the old system and the newly insured under subsidies, a different approach is now required. The approach will have to "blend" the two different options. This would involved:

1. A private system that would increase competition and drive down rates and deductibles, while increasing doctor availability.

2. A more governmental plan to address the increasing costs of the uninsured or currently subsidized enrolled.

What the new plan must do is factor in the costs of using the emergency for the uninsured and the subsidies being paid otherwise. Then, a "voucher" system could be created in conjunction with the insurance companies to create a "limited" insurance plan.

Caveat: I am not an ideologue but instead, pragmatic. I look at issues and then determine what is the best outcome for the country as a whole. You see that in my thinking here, and then with the Trump Tax Plan. With Immigration, I look at it as requiring control of the borders, and then some type of action to get rid of the bad apples and for the good ones, to create a way for them to become legal, but not through a blanket amnesty and citizenship. I also don't want to see them coming in and immediately going on the dole.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump and the 48k earner
« Reply #290 on: September 28, 2015, 08:30:15 PM »
PP,  I have tenants with similar financial challenges.  But the point of tax reform (IMO) isn't for more people to escape paying a share.  The point is to grow opportunities and incomes so they can pay their own bills and part of ours.  The Trump plan does that, but this isn't the feature that grows the economy.  I was pointing out a small glitch but it turns out it is the center of his sales pitch.  Trump rhetoric misses the point.  

BTW, the federal tax on that family is less than $200/mo. http://calcnexus.com/federal-tax-calculator.php   Eliminating that does not solve their problem.

W Bush had the same problem Trump is showing here.  By the time his tax rate cuts were fully in place, federal revenues started growing at a double digit rate, growing over 33% in 3 years.  But W didn't understand his own tax plan even after it was in place and couldn't articulate how or why it worked.  The result was Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the unraveling of everything that worked.  Now here comes our frontrunner selling his plan by touting the only non-growth aspect of it.  

I'm not arguing for higher taxes on anyone - or more free rides.    The burden of big government is the reason why people don't make more and why 48k doesn't support a  family anymore - even in North Dakota - and we need to fix that.  Unfortunately, that isn't Trump's message.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #291 on: September 28, 2015, 08:50:20 PM »
I await further details, but I heard something that sure sounded like Trump backing single payer-- maybe I got tricked by some older footage?

Anyway, I like what I have heard so far from Dr. Ben in this regard.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #292 on: September 29, 2015, 12:13:37 AM »
Doug,

Right now, 45% of all the US pays NO federal tax. None. Zip. Nada. The Trump Plan increases that to 50%. Here is the first question,

Can Trump or any Republican get elected by promising to increase federal tax rates on those who are currently paying nothing? Hell no!!! It will not happen. So if you want a Dem back in office, just try to run a Pubbie promising to increase taxes on the non payers.

Next question. How did we get here with 47% not paying taxes in the first place?

The reason for where we are now is the stupidity of 43 and the policies enacted after 9-11.

When 9-11 occurred, the economy fell back into recession almost immediately. Something was needed to be done to stimulate the economy. So Bush instituted a plan that would reduce tax rates, give every tax payer a $600 rebate and also had the Fed cut interest rates. And guess what? It worked!!!

The tax cuts lowered the rates by 50% on low income earners. Over 80% of the dollar amount of the tax cuts hit the low income earners. This led to the 47% of wage earners not paying any taxes by 2010.

The tax cuts were not sustainable however. In fact, that was the purpose of "sunsetting" them 10 years later, in 2012.  Of course, this was also after presidential elections through 2008 which would have found it likely that a Dem would have been elected anyway.  (Just like Obamacare not fully enacting until 2016.)

There was a small cadre of conservative republicans advocating that the cuts be discontinued by 2005, long before the sunset date. They understood that the cuts were otherwise unsustainable and that the budget would begin to experience larger and larger deficits otherwise. This would be greatly enhanced if Dems got into power, which actually occurred in 2006.

In 2012, the sunsetted tax cuts were supposed to expire. But the Republicans found out very quickly that it was impossible to allow them to be restored, and so they were left alone to stay in place. Attempting to restore the taxes would mean complete unelectability of Repubs everywhere.

This is the situation that we face today. It is impossible to restore the tax cuts on the 47% at this time. And Trump knows it.

What has to be done is to put together a plan that will grow the economy, the wages and will allow at some point to then begin to restore the taxes that had been cut. There is simply no other way to do it.

How to stimulate the economy and accomplish this goal? Make businesses economically viable again. Get businesses to return the capital that is overseas and reinvest it. Cut taxes on business so that they can invest more capital into their businesses from the decreased tax rates.

Also, cut capital gains, eliminate the estate tax and other things as pointed out in the Trump Plan. Then attack government regulations. Also of this together should reinvigorate the economy and create a new era of expansion.

However, this cannot happen if there is an immediate demand the increase taxes on the 47% that do not yet pay them. Any attempt to do so will result in the candidate not being elected.

Going to be interesting............
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #293 on: September 29, 2015, 07:22:48 AM »
Latest poll: Trump down to 21% of Republicans, still first place. 79% of Republicans not sold. Losing to Hillary by 10%!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

NY Times today, Joe Nocera, Trump can't handle losing, will be out before Iowa.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/joe-nocera-is-donald-trump-serious.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat: "Right now, 45% of all the US pays NO federal tax. None. Zip. Nada. The Trump Plan increases that to 50%.

   - No. Trump says it "removes" 75 million.  Others say it removes 31 million that currently pay.  In any case, (as Crafty and others suggest) going over 50% is a BIG deal politically.  "We will buy your vote" is not a winning mantra for the Republicans or the Republic.

"Can Trump or any Republican get elected by promising to increase federal tax rates on those who are currently paying nothing?"

   - That is not the only alternative to not making a bad situation worse.

"This is the situation that we face today. It is impossible to restore the tax cuts on the 47% at this time. And Trump knows it."

   - The lower income earners kept their Bush tax cut and the higher earner ones lost theirs under Obama.  The way you get more people to have skin in the game is to leave the floor the same and grow the incomes past that threshold.

"Next question. How did we get here with 47% not paying taxes in the first place?
The reason for where we are now is the stupidity of 43 and the policies enacted after 9-11.
When 9-11 occurred, the economy fell back into recession almost immediately. Something was needed to be done to stimulate the economy. So Bush instituted a plan that would reduce tax rates, give every tax payer a $600 rebate and also had the Fed cut interest rates. And guess what? It worked!!!
The tax cuts lowered the rates by 50% on low income earners. Over 80% of the dollar amount of the tax cuts hit the low income earners. This led to the 47% of wage earners not paying any taxes by 2010.
The tax cuts were not sustainable however. In fact, that was the purpose of "sunsetting" them 10 years later, in 2012.  Of course, this was also after presidential elections through 2008 which would have found it likely that a Dem would have been elected anyway.  (Just like Obamacare not fully enacting until 2016.)
There was a small cadre of conservative republicans advocating that the cuts be discontinued by 2005, long before the sunset date. They understood that the cuts were otherwise unsustainable and that the budget would begin to experience larger and larger deficits otherwise. This would be greatly enhanced if Dems got into power, which actually occurred in 2006.
In 2012, the sunsetted tax cuts were supposed to expire. But the Republicans found out very quickly that it was impossible to allow them to be restored, and so they were left alone to stay in place. Attempting to restore the taxes would mean complete unelectability of Repubs everywhere."

   - It started with a (rare) mistake Reagan made, W learned nothing and made worse and Trump is determined to complete, playing perfectly into the leftist hand.  Don't worry you poor working people, we will have the rich pay all your expenses.  Also like W, we see all tax rate cut with no spending rate cut.  ("Big Government Conservatism"?)

The Bush tax rate cuts were given a sunset because of antiquated, static economy, congressional rules, not because they were unsustainable.  In 2005 revenues were growing at double digit rates.  They became unsustainable when Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Hillary, Biden et al took majority in congress with the promise to raise rates back up.  At that point, income was still taxed at the lower rate while investors were making pullback decisions based on the higher, future marginal rate, and growth collapsed.


"How to stimulate the economy and accomplish this goal? Make businesses economically viable again. Get businesses to return the capital that is overseas and reinvest it. Cut taxes on business so that they can invest more capital into their businesses from the decreased tax rates.
Also, cut capital gains, eliminate the estate tax and other things as pointed out in the Trump Plan. Then attack government regulations. Also of this together should reinvigorate the economy and create a new era of expansion."

   - This is exactly right.  Trump hit about the right percentages for the high end needed to grow the economy.  But then why lead with the worst part of the plan that plays right into your opponents' hand?  As pp has said, any tax plan is a starting point.  Like 1986 immigration 'reform', people will lock onto the free ride up to 50k even if the pro-growth, higher income rate cuts never materialize.  They can that with any Democrat.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #294 on: September 29, 2015, 08:40:41 AM »
Doug,

I think we both agree that any Repub candidate that proposes to tax the 45% is going to lose in the general election. So why even hold an election. Let's just hold a coronation and name any Dem as ruler for life.

I predicted exactly what would happen when Trump position papers were released. Some would claim more specifics were needed and others would attack the specifics that were released. Now, let's see if the Dems or if the other Rep candidates are required to release such strong position papers and what will happen if they do. I can easily predict that result.

IMO, the country is now completely screwed. The next President is going to be one of the Uni-Party no matter what. (Trump will not win now.) He/she will be controlled by Wall Street, Party officials, Chamber of Commerce and other big money establishment types. Illegal Immigration will continue. Amnesty will be granted again. The rich get richer and the middle class continues to get screwed.

The 2016 election is the break point, the final chance to plot any type of change of course. And with either Uni-Party candidate, the course will remain the same.

Carson cannot win, and even if he could win, he would be easily manipulated by the "controllers" to get what they want. (Plus, Carson appears to be questionable on understanding the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)

Fiorina might win, but it would be a difficult road. Even then, the more I study her, the more of a "decepticon" she appears to be, much more liberal that she appears. Weak on immigration control, big on man made Global Warming, Amnesty, Common Core and other issues. For her supporters, beware of what you think she represents.

Cruz has no hope of winning. He will be hit with the Tea Party brand. And the others including Jeb and Rubio, they are establishment types.

Time for me to dig a hole, climb in, and pull it over me...............

 
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #295 on: September 29, 2015, 09:01:40 AM »
I think Trump did himself a lot of good with his tax proposal.  On first look, it is quite appealing and appears to be a serious piece of work.

No doubt there will be accusations it increases the deficit.  The Donald will need to be able to defend it effectively.

BTW, I like Rubio, but must say he himself has allowed his tax plan to sink without a trace.  If Trump can defend his proposal, will Rubio be able to defend his when Trump attacks?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #296 on: September 29, 2015, 09:52:28 AM »
Rubio has a big problem with his plan.

Individual Filers:

Over              But not over                   Marginal Rate
$0                    $75,000                             15%
$75,000             And over                           35%

Joint Filers:
Over               But not over                   Marginal Rate
$0                   $150,000                             15%
$150,000           And over                            35%


Ya think that Rubio can promote federal taxes on the 45% that don't pay taxes?  Dems will kill him on this. No wonder he is hiding.

BTW, it matters not that there will be child care and child penalty provisions. People will only look at the basics.......I don't pay taxes now, but I will at 15% under Rubio. I am voting for the Dems. Screw the Rich Loving Repubs.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #297 on: September 29, 2015, 09:57:14 AM »
You may be right, but first let's see what comes out with regard to whether Trump's plan can be sold as deficit neutral or positive.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #298 on: September 29, 2015, 10:16:40 AM »
Doesn't matter whether it is revenue neutral or positive. The media and the GOPe are pulling out all stops to prevent Trump from winning, and instead installing a RINO as candidate.

There are many more machinations going on in the Primary rules for each state. It is all designed to stall the Trump insurgency. Eventually, it will be the undoing of Trump. And it will let probably Rubio in as the nominee since Jeb is pretty much toast right now.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #299 on: September 29, 2015, 02:40:28 PM »
Sure it matters; if Trump can be painted as increasing the deficit, then that is no good.