Yeah I saw where the pro Trump shops sent out the anti Rachel Maddow spin to all their PR hacks and their many many socks.

But that's because they are desperate to try to distract and deflect from the fact that no one has perfected pay to play better than Trump, his family, and his administration.

 

Awesome talking points you found today.

 

Shootersa is an excellent liar by omission. The costs he is attributing to President Obama and President Bush's inauguration include both the private costs for entertainment as well as the public costs for security. When the point is how much did people donate to those inauguration committees to pay for the private stuff.

And all those inauguration included huge celebrity performances and other expenses.

While there was a record $107 million donated to Trump's inaugural committee with no big celebrity performances and a much smaller inauguration.

Which not only proves Trump's pay to play. It also proves Trump is sitting on one hell of a big slush fund that so far has not been accounted for.

 

There is certainly a lot of silliness bouncing around in this thread. I was so happy and relieved for the USA when Obama won the election for presidency I almost choked up and cried. What a truly remarkable achievement. Yes, Obama was a crappy president but he was a symbol to the entire world that we in the USA aren't as racist or backwards as most believed we are and that to me is worth more than all his failures Now we have Trump as our president. Nothing to be happy about. But relief in that he is not a politician. He is the first non-politician to win the White House in my lifetime. I have argued most of my adult life, as have many others, it is time to see how well business people can run our country since ours is as pure a capitalist system as exists.

Now that he sits in the White House we are learning business people aren't as easy to bend to past standards. The very wealthy are used to using tax and monitoring laws to their advantage. Without breaking the law, they manage to pay minimal taxes on their income and that of their corporations. They also expect to travel at a level of comfort that, in their opinions, they deserve. Remember, in the USA personal success is often measured in money -- and what money buys. When the laws are changed to close the tax and monitor loop-holes (don't hold your breath) rich people will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, as will the corporations they own. I have never known or read about any person or tax accountant who pays more taxes than the law requires. For a corporation to do this is foolish unless all of its competitors do the same thing. Quality does a lot to sell a product but so doesn't cost.

How much has President Trump achieved in the few months he has been in charge? Quite a bit, in my opinion. His major achievement has been in learning how to do business in D.C., not an easy adjustment for any business person. How about not screaming the sky is falling every day -- it isn't and it will not -- and measure his real accomplishments. He needs a full year to put together a good team and to understand how this "new business" works. As for his tweeting, yes the guy is nuts but so aren't so many of us.

As for the cost of having Trump as president (wife still in NY, weekly trips to Florida, etc.); lets remember very wealthy people live quite differently than most of us and don't know how much such trivial things cost because they are as much a part of their cost of living as a loaf of bread is for many of us. Work through your senators and representatives to change laws that you believe cost us too much.

 

You think the world sees the U.S. as racists?, that doesn't even come close to reality.

The only people that see the U.S. as racists, are those that are keeping the race card open, open for politically advantagous reasons..

And to claim that Trump is blind and niave to the ways of all political aspirations that the establishment has set for decades is just as silly.

 

How would you know?

 

Prove me different then.

 

So you pulled it out of your ass.

Gotcha.

 

The only desperation these days comes from the left, a group of frothing hypocrites that can't take the fact that the other side holds the reins. Madcow is your voice of reason, your bullet points to follow...good luck loser, you'll be needing it.

 

Trump (his PR hacks and their many many socks and Trump supporters)--It has been a very successful 100 days

Well we all know I told you so that is total bullshit but its only going to get worse.

‘We’re not even close to how bad it’s going to get’: Why Trump will never, ever admit he’s failing

 

Here I thought people might actually give a fuck what Hush thinks with that many general posts in a thread ... until I noticed this thread was hijacked a long time ago LOL.

 

Trump--I saved more than 1,000 jobs at Carrier

I told you so that is total bullshit.

I feel used up’: Carrier workers aren’t happy about losing jobs after Trump’s ‘deal’

 

Trump--Its called pay to play

Ok that's not total bullshit. Trump, his family, and his administration is better at playing pay to play than any administration in history.

U.S. Embassies Post Article Extolling Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

 

Trump--Its called pay to play

Ok once again that is not total bullshit. No one knows how to play pay to play better than Trump, his family, and his administration.

Ivanka is starting her own foundation — and is accepting checks from foreign governments: report

 

Trump--I will end NAFTA

I told you so that is total bullshit.

Trump agrees not to terminate NAFTA after calls with Canada’s Trudeau and Mexico’s Nieto

 

I told you so... https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/stev...l-man-in-the-world.445925/page-4#post-7962520

Tax Plan Shifts Trillions From U.S. Coffers to Richest Families:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...t-families/ar-BBAszor?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U220DHP

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s proposal to slash individual and business taxes and erase a surtax that funds the Affordable Care Act would amount to a multitrillion-dollar shift from federal coffers to America’s richest families and their heirs, setting up a politically fraught battle over how best to use the government’s already strained resources.

The outline that Mr. Trump offered on Wednesday — less a tax overhaul plan than a list of costly cuts with no price tags attached, rushed out by a president staring down his 100-day mark in office — calls for tax reductions for individuals of every income level as well as businesses large and small.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

But the vast majority of benefits would accrue to the highest earners and largest holders of wealth, according to economists and analysts, accounting for a lopsided portion of the proposal’s costs.

“The only Americans who are very clear winners under the new system are the wealthiest,” said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimates the revenue effects of tax proposals.

Repealing the estate tax, for example, would affect just 5,300 or so fortunes a year. For 2017, couples can shield up to $11 million of their estates from any taxation, leaving only the largest inheritances subject to taxation. Repealing the estate tax alone would cost an estimated $174.2 billion over a decade, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center said.

Reducing the rate on capital gains, noncorporate business taxes and those in the highest bracket, as well as repealing the alternative minimum tax, would also ease the burden on wealthier Americans. So would the repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s 3.8 percent surtax on the investment income of high earners, put in place to subsidize health coverage for low-income Americans.

“These are all afflictions of the affluent,” Mr. Kleinbard said.

There is no way to know how the mathematics of the proposal would work, since the White House offered no cost estimates, no detail about which incomes would be taxed at what levels and no information about tax deductions or other breaks that might be eliminated to make up for the lost revenue.

On Thursday, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, suggested that tax benefits for retirement savings would be rolled back to mitigate the cost of the tax cuts, the kind of tough decision that makes a rewrite of the tax code so politically difficult. But within minutes, White House officials said Mr. Spicer had misspoken.

Officials instead said specifics would come later, as negotiations unfolded with members of Congress to draft legislation.

The administration’s silence on many crucial details of the proposal was by design, to leave room for what promise to be intense negotiations with lawmakers in Congress, said Rohit Kumar, the leader of PwC’s Washington National Tax Services and a former senior Republican Senate aide.

Yet without specifics, he added, “you can’t make anything but a wild guess on what the distributional effects of the proposal would be.”

“What the administration put out yesterday is all of the good news,” Mr. Kumar said. “They’ve withheld on the bad news.”

But estimates of the impacts for some of the cuts that were outlined Wednesday, such as the estate tax and alternative minimum tax repeals, can be made, and they run directly counter to the populist themes that animated Mr. Trump’s campaign. He has often stated his concern for ordinary working men and women who he contends were forgotten under previous administrations but have risen to the top of the priority list under his leadership.

Many economists who analyzed a similar plan Mr. Trump proposed during his presidential campaign found that it would have disproportionately helped the richest. William G. Gale, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington, estimated that just over 50 percent of the benefits of that proposal would have gone to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

The new proposal “loses probably something in the neighborhood of $5 trillion in revenue over 10 years with regressive tax cuts that exacerbate the inequalities that already exist in our economy,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who was a top economist in the Obama administration.

Mr. Trump’s economic team argues that there is no disconnect; the tax reductions they are seeking, they argue, will ultimately help all Americans, including the poorest, by spurring growth that will translate into more jobs and better wages.

Still, it seems almost inevitable that the blueprint, should it eventually yield legislation, would violate the vow Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, made that the administration would provide “no absolute tax cut for the upper class.”

That axiom, uttered by Mr. Mnuchin in November and quickly named the “Mnuchin rule” by skeptical Democrats, was based on his insistence that any tax reductions at the top would be matched by the elimination of deductions and loopholes.

“It is hard to know what the overall effects would be, but a plan that is intended to reduce taxes on business income and investment income is going to provide substantial benefits to wealthier individuals, and the bulk of the benefits in this plan would go to them,” said Ed Lorenzen, a senior adviser for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal policy education group. “It would probably work out to be a significant shift in the distribution of the tax code.”

One major reason is Mr. Trump’s idea to allow the income of owner-operated companies, including his real estate concern, hedge funds and large partnerships, to be taxed at a 15 percent rate — the same rate corporations would pay under his plan — rather than at the individual income tax rate, which now tops out at 39.6 percent and would be set at 35 percent by Mr. Trump.

That would potentially allow doctors, lawyers and others who are part of such firms to structure their compensation as business rather than personal income and effectively enjoy a substantial tax cut. The Tax Policy Center estimated last year that the proposal would cost $1.5 trillion over a decade.

Higher earners also appear likely to reap the greatest benefit from repealing the alternative minimum tax, which is set at a marginal rate of 28 percent and falls most heavily on those who earn between $250,000 and $1 million. In 2013, President Barack Obama and Congress reached agreement on a “fix” that shielded middle-class families from the tax. So any repeal now would benefit wealthier taxpayers.

Only a fifth of taxpayers who earn above $1 million were affected by the provision, a parallel tax system that limits the deductions and other tax breaks available to them, in part because interest and investment income are exempt.

A glimpse of Mr. Trump’s 2005 tax returns revealed that the alternative minimum tax cost him roughly $31 million by setting a floor that even a stack of individual loopholes could not reduce. Repealing it would cost $412.8 billion over a decade, the Tax Policy Center has estimated.

At the same time, lower- and middle-income families could be in a worse position. The White House proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10, 25 and 35 percent. But no one yet knows where the income cutoff lines are being drawn. People who end up being pushed into a lower bracket would be better off, but those kicked into a higher bracket would not be.

Families with after-tax income between roughly $19,000 and $76,000, for example, are now in the 15 percent marginal tax bracket, which is slated for elimination.

“That’s where the middle of America is,” Mr. Kleinbard said. While some may drop into the new 10 percent bracket, others could be nudged up into the 25 percent range.

Increasing the standard deduction to about $24,000 for couples might also appear to help most families, but that is not necessarily the case, Mr. Kleinbard pointed out. Larger families, which now benefit from being able to add a deduction for every additional member of their household, could lose out.

“At the bottom end, the typical family will be worse off if personal exemptions go away,” he said.


White House Proposes Slashing Tax Rates, Significantly Aiding Wealthy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/politics/trump-tax-cut-plan.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday proposed sharp reductions in individual and business income tax rates and a radical reordering of the tax code that would significantly benefit the wealthy, but he offered no explanation of how the plan would be financed as he rushed to show progress before the 100-day mark of his presidency.

Mr. Trump’s skeletal outline of a tax package, unveiled at the White House in a single-page statement filled with bullet points, was less a plan than a wish list. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Gary D. Cohn, the director of Mr. Trump’s National Economic Council, laid out the bare bones to reporters, part of a mad dash toward the administration’s 100th day on Saturday that has included the resurrection of a health care bill and near-daily signings of executive orders.

But they offered none of the standard accouterments of such rollouts, such as detailed charts showing the cost of each provision, phase-in periods, the impacts of the proposals on people and testimonials on the program’s potential benefits.

“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something really big,” Mr. Cohn said. “President Trump has made tax reform a priority, and we have a Republican Congress that wants to get it done.”

The proposal envisions slashing the tax rate paid by businesses large and small to 15 percent. The number of individual income tax brackets would shrink from seven to three — 10, 25 and 35 percent — easing the tax burden on most Americans, including the president, although aides did not offer the income ranges for each bracket.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Individual tax rates currently have a ceiling of 39.6 percent and a floor of 10 percent. Most Americans pay taxes somewhere between the two.

The president would eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax, a parallel system that primarily hits wealthier people by effectively limiting the deductions and other benefits available to them — both moves that would richly benefit Mr. Trump. Little is known of Mr. Trump’s tax burden, but one of the small nuggets revealed in the partial release of a 2005 tax return this year was that he paid $31 million under the alternative minimum tax that year.

Corporations would not have to pay taxes on their foreign profits, an unusual proposal for a president who has championed an “America first” approach and railed against companies that move jobs and resources overseas. They would also enjoy a special, one-time opportunity to bring home cash that they are parking overseas, though administration officials would not say how low that rate would be or how they would ensure that the money would be invested productively.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump wants to double the standard deduction for individuals, essentially eliminating taxes on around $24,000 of a couple’s earnings. That proposal was met with alarm by home builders and real estate agents, who fear it would disincentivize the purchase of homes. The proposal would scrap most itemized deductions, such as those for state and local tax payments, a valuable break for taxpayers in Democratic states like California and New York.

But the president would leave in place popular breaks for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and retirement savings.
Graphic
What Trump’s Tax Proposal Will Cost

A point-by-point look at how much it will increase the federal deficit.



In a brief session with reporters, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Mnuchin said they had been toiling for weeks on the proposal, much of which closely resembles the plan Mr. Trump championed as a presidential candidate. They argued that it would spur robust economic growth that would — along with the elimination of deductions — cover the potentially multitrillion-dollar proposal entirely, a prospect that even many Republicans privately concede is virtually impossible.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
“This will pay for itself with growth and with reduction of different deductions and closing loopholes,” Mr. Mnuchin said, repeating his optimistic estimate that the plan would spur the economy to grow at a rate of 3 percent annually. “The economic plan under Trump will grow the economy and will create massive amounts of revenues, trillions of dollars in additional revenues.”

Democrats rejected what they described as magical thinking behind the plan and condemned it as a giveaway to the rich masquerading as a tax overhaul.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
“This is an unprincipled tax plan that will result in cuts for the 1 percent, conflicts for the president, crippling debt for America and crumbs for the working people,” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, said in a statement. “Instead of providing a real tax reform plan as promised, this administration is offering cakes to the fortunate few.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Bernard Baumohl, the chief global economist at the Economic Outlook Group, a forecasting firm, was unsparing.

“The effort to introduce more fiscal stimulus into the economy is genuinely underway,” he wrote to clients. “But the bare bones plan we saw unveiled today is already conceptually flawed and unlikely to go far in Congress. The final product will bear no resemblance to the principal points highlighted in today’s meager release. Certainly, the first step in this process was unimpressive.”

Mr. Cohn said the plan was “the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986” — the last time a comprehensive tax overhaul was enacted — as well as “one of the biggest tax cuts in American history,” in line with Mr. Trump’s grandiose portrayal.

As expected, the White House did not include in its plan the border adjustment tax on imports that was a centerpiece of a plan developed by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Earlier on Wednesday, Mr. Mnuchin said the White House could not support that proposal “in its current form,” setting up an intraparty struggle over the elements of a tax plan and how to offset the deep reductions envisioned.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
But Republican leaders who are eager for large tax cuts did not allow their internal divisions over elements of the package to obscure their overall support for Mr. Trump’s effort.

Mr. Ryan and Mr. Brady issued a joint statement with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the chairman of the Finance Committee, saying the principles outlined Wednesday would “serve as critical guideposts” as Congress and the administration worked together on a tax overhaul.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump also signaled support for revisions to the tax code that would help families with child-care costs, although his document provided no details. He called for ending the 3.8 percent tax on investment income that was imposed by the Affordable Care Act, restoring the capital gains rate to 20 percent.

Democrats are ready to battle Mr. Trump over the tax cuts, which they are determined to tie to his refusal to release his tax returns.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
“Trump’s latest proposal is another gift to corporations and billionaires like himself,” said Thomas E. Perez, the Democratic Party chairman. “Trump must release his tax returns, as millions of Americans are demanding, before Congress can consider any Trump tax plan. We must know how much Trump would personally financially benefit from his own proposal.”

Questioned about that repeatedly on Wednesday, Mr. Mnuchin said that Mr. Trump, the first president in four decades not to disclose at least a portion of his tax returns, had “no intention” of releasing them now.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
“I can’t comment on the president’s tax situation since I don’t have access to that, O.K.?” Mr. Mnuchin said when asked how large of a tax cut the president would receive under his own plan.

The plan contrasts starkly with the one championed by House Republicans, who proposed paying for their tax cuts in part with the new tax on imports, an effort to ensure that the measure would not swell the deficit.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
The White House plan does call for “a territorial system to level the playing field for American companies,” akin to a component of House Republicans’ plan that would allow United States corporations to pay taxes only on their domestic profits.

“I worry that the Trump proposal would shift a tremendous amount of income abroad,” said Alan B. Krueger, who was a chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “It’s hard to square that with incentivizing investment in the U.S.”

Republicans have long called for permanent, comprehensive changes to the tax code, but lately they have shown increasing openness to tax cuts with an expiration date. If they embark on a plan to pass legislation that adds to the deficit and cannot be filibustered by Democrats, Senate budget rules dictate that the tax cuts would expire after a decade.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
“If we have them for 10 years, that’s better than nothing,” Mr. Mnuchin said.

Democrats were particularly critical of Mr. Trump’s idea of allowing firms known as pass-through entities — including hedge funds, real estate concerns like Mr. Trump’s and large partnerships — that currently pay taxes at individual rates, which top off at 39.6 percent, to be eligible for the 15 percent corporate rate.

Critics worry that lawyers, doctors, consultants and other individuals in partnerships could structure much of their personal income as business income, effectively reducing their tax rate from 39.6 percent to 15 percent.

Mr. Mnuchin said the administration would not allow that to happen.

“We will make sure that there are rules in place so that wealthy people can’t create pass-throughs and use that as a mechanism to avoid paying the tax rate that they should be on the personal side,” he said.

The explanation did not seem to mollify Democrats.

“We don’t need a tax plan that allows the very rich to use pass-throughs to reduce their rates to 15 percent while average Americans are paying much more,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said Wednesday. “That’s not tax reform. That’s just a tax giveaway to the very, very wealthy that will explode the deficit.”

Hush....an alias

 

And yes you did tell us so Hush.

 

I see the miners are getting nervous ,
and not so sure of their continuing support for him.

He's helped the mine companies , mine owners alright ,
but what about us the mine workers ?
they're asking.

Something to do with their insurance etc.
(I missed the detail . and . don't know enough about the system , but it's looking tricky , already being at lowest approval rating ever)

Dose the miners welfare depend on getting a certain wall built ?
or was it only the mine companies/owners that mattered ?
or ?

Perhaps it's a bit like everyone should buy American ,
but trump family can buy Chinese.