Trump: The First 100 Days

Oh boy Internet points LOL…he wants to raise our taxes and redistribute the money. He also calls himself a socialist. Maybe you should email him and tell him to knock it off as it does not meet our definition.

Read the definition of Socialism. You are contradicting yourself. If Bernie is not a Socialist in the truest definition then how can the other lefties like crazy Lizzie be one? Can’t have it both ways E.

Oh my…First of all when Visa comes calling I make my payment. I do that because I may have purchased a new lawn mower or a big screen TV. See the difference? I chose to make a purchase and…with MY money that I earned. Get it yet? When I pay the tax man I do it because I am under threat of prosecution if I do not. I have no control over what they do with it. If I had then they would not be wasting about sixty cents of every dollar.

As for the people who created the federal debt we need look no further than Washington DC. It was the slimy politicians (your heroes?) who racked up the debt. And the only way out is to reduce spending and cut government bureaucracy. And also growing the economy threw tax cuts will help as well.

Or is it…Logic does not dictate that there be 20 trillion in federal debt which by the way your hero Obama more than doubled. And if you think allowing hard working people to keep their hard earned money harms the economy then I you are void of all rationality as it does the reverse.

From your link:

President Obama needed to hike taxes by $567 billion and save another $477B in order to “save” $143B and that was before they nearly doubled their total cost estimate to $1.76T.

So, ya, it’s pretty likely that it’s gonna add to the debt.

*Not to mention that’s just the first 10/11 year impact of a new social program that will exist forever now…

Says someone who voted for Obama twice when he was busy doubling the national debt.

But…he’s cool he was on the Jon Stewart show and he’s black and way liberal man…so it’s okay.

Does the plan Trump just approved of lead you to believe this administration will accomplish this? Serious question, because it scares the shit out of me that we’re seeing all the negatives of Republicans, and all the negatives of Democrats. Hell we’re even seeing some brand new negatives I didn’t see coming.

Scary times.

That’s why I am running in four years on the T Nation ticket. The platform will be based on a flat tax rate and a radical reduction of the size and scope of government.

And I will choose you to be in my cabinet!

:sunglasses:

Hmm…Where I come from, it’s called ‘being right.’

We covered this. The key, of course, is the qualifier to a degree that I included in my comment.

There is no meaningful difference between your example, and purchases made on your behalf by our representatives in Washington.

Sure you do. It’s called ‘the democratic process.’

Like it or not, they put that debt on our credit card, and thus we’re responsible for paying it off.

Swing and a miss. That’s not a logic issue–it’s one of those pesky ‘facts’ you guys are so averse to.

I’m not going to argue the accounting specifics, because I simply don’t have the needed expertise. But I think it’s important to compare HC costs under O’care vs what they would have been without it.

And I would still maintain that adding to the debt during wartime in an attempt to control HC costs is qualitatively different from adding to the debt during wartime in an attempt to, um, whatever motivated Bush to do it.

You keep saying this as if Obama didn’t inherit the reason all that deficit spending was necessary.

No, you said there were Socialists in both parties and then you said that Bernie is not a Socialist. I then said that you can’t have it both ways.

There is a gigantic difference between slimy politicians deciding to spend my money on things like why do frogs make a certain sound only at night and me making a purchase to improve my life. You are confusing how someone would intelligently spend their money with how the government stupidly spends the peoples money.

Oh stop it E. We can vote and then write a few letters after that it’s over. If you think you can control how the feds spend our money you are dreaming my friend.

I agree with you. That means we need to shrink the federal government and drastically lower taxes to spur the economy. Two things the left will never do as they are beholding to those who put them in office and those folks don’t want any part of it.

A pesky fact like Obama more than doubling the debt in 8 years…after he called GW Bush unpatriotic for running the debt up to 9 trillion.

I’m OK with allowing that discussion to stand as is.

Not when we take into account that you authorized those pols to spend your money as they see fit.

I’m not sure what purpose you think is served by repeating this over and over, but whatever floats your boat…

E, nice talking with you as always. We will never agree. But I do think that if you put yourself in my shoes you would be a bit more sympathetic to what I am constantly pounding the table about. When one takes monumental risks starting their own small business it seems patently unfair that the federal government seize 39.5% of all the money that is made. And then the state and local taxes must be considered.

During the election candidate Hillary Clinton said that “the rich are not paying their fair share.” One of the many lies of the left but very effective at what the dems do best and that is "class warfare.’ So old Hillary said she was going to hike taxes on “the rich” by 5%. So, I would have been paying 44.5% in federal taxes alone. Now with state and local taxes I would have been paying well over half of everything that I make to the government. How in the world does that make any sense?

We come from two differing political philosophies but somewhere inside that very left wing head of yours you must see how someone like me thinks that taxes are just too high and small business folks along with the middle class needs a break.

Trump wields the veto pen, and he’s not letting Ryan, etc., run budget negotiations by themselves. He could, but he’s not. Congress doesn’t want the fight, but Trump was supposed to be hard charger that wouldn’t let a squishy budget get through. He rolled over, and Democrats are having a field day. Hell, they’re fundraising over it.

I still can’t wrap my head around the all around minority party accomplishing so much with this budget proposal. If the GOP was half this effective with Obama in charge we’d live in a totally different world.

2 Likes

I can’t either. The Democrats are in complete disarray, the Republicans control it all, and they pass a budget the Democrats are hailing as a triumph.

Remember the discussion about Muslims I had a while back?

It seems like it’s come to that in France

https://twitter.com/pamela_moore13/status/858827330227060736

Not too late for America to right the ship

Except for that pesky 1st amendment. …I know you guys just know #2 but theres a hole bunch more worth a google

1 Like

1st amendment was designed to govern a NW European population.

Other parts of world do not respect free speech in the same way. If the population in America continues to change it will disappear.

The 1st amendment was designed to be utilized regardless of what type of population it’s applied against.

Wrong. You underestimate Americans.

2 Likes

Sorry, I owed you a response and forgot. Yes, I think a number of big companies with money parked overseas are waiting for a repatriation “fix” to bring cash home and do something with it. But the question is what is the “something”? If memory serves (I’ll try and find the link), Apple was actually borrowing over recent years to fund stock buybacks and dividend distributions (since they weren’t going to fund with overseas dollars, avoiding the tax bite) - and that’s the key: they were choosing to use the cash equivalent/alternative not to build new factories, etc., but to simply reward shareholders.

Meaning, if there was meaningful ROI to get by spending on capital projects, R&D, etc., they had no real barrier - they had plenty of cash equivalent/alternative. They chose not to based on their industry’s business condition, not due to a shortage of capital to work with. Providing more capital in the form of a tax cut (when capital is already plentiful) will not automatically translate into massive outlays in the “supply” side, I don’t believe.

2 Likes

I think in Apple’s case you’re probably right unless they do decide to move into other industries as is rumored. I know that Jobs was big on keeping cash reserves and Cook seems to have followed that example. I think it’s possible they are waiting/hoping to bring, iirc, 80% of their cash reserves to the U.S. before plunging into a new industry. I think that jives with their cash reserve mantra, but that’s conjecture on my part.

I believe you’re right about Apple borrowing to pay shareholders, at least that is what I’ve read on the WSJ.

1 Like

People make the country, not the dirt

People die. People fail. The ideas make the country.

1 Like