Red1966
Well-Known Member
Yes, Trumps real estate holdings were all manufactured in China.
EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Nobody invited you in?i've been to mar-a lago..drove right past it..also versace mansion steps
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
If you had watched The Five on FOX yesterday you would have heard many sides of that story including his proposed tax plan.
Instead you choose to digest bullshit here at RIU.
Stay ignorant, but happy.
natro.hydro
Well-Known Member
Hey @schuylaar whos ball hairs you gotta twist over at the sanders campaign to get them to mail me a damn bumper sticker! I paid for one the day after the bernie bday bash on his site and gave and extra 10 bucks. Next day got an email offering a free one so I took em up on that and have yet to recieve either sticker! I know bureaucrats operate at a different pace but damn...
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Oops, there goes the 12 views and auto votes.
Wouldn't surprise me if your socialist party didn't hand that over to some assistant doing a pizza run. Live and learn.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Oh look, once again Uncle Ben can't say a thing except sit there with his fingers in his ears and go "YOU'RE IGNORANT!" You're the one watching Fox News buddy, and if you knew anything you'd know that Trump's tax plan is for chumps. I was reading about it all last night and it would cost us an estimated $10 trillion dollars over ten years according to some noted Economists.If you had watched The Five on FOX yesterday you would have heard many sides of that story including his proposed tax plan.
Instead you choose to digest bullshit here at RIU.
Stay ignorant, but happy.
Once again, rather than sit there and make ad hominems, try to actually discuss something? Otherwise I'll continue to keep shutting you down like I consistently have.
Btw, you have seriously the weakest, sophmore in high school debate club arguments I've ever seen.
For such a Richy Rich you have a poor understanding of economics and financial markets.
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
@pnwmystery I'm interested in knowing which "noted economists" you are referring to.
The economic policy plan has been out for 24 hours
How in the hell could somebody go through it that fast, make serious considerations, and then come to 10 trillion dollar conclusions in such a short period of time?
The economic policy plan has been out for 24 hours
How in the hell could somebody go through it that fast, make serious considerations, and then come to 10 trillion dollar conclusions in such a short period of time?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
They couldn't. What he meant was Rachael Maddow told me...
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Well, you're full of shit since I haven't watched Rachel Maddow since ~2010.
Lol now I know you're trolling. Are you serious -- people can't pour over an economic policy plan in 24 hours? You must have never worked in politics. Unfortunately for you I have in various aspects.
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-math-trumps-tax-plan-doesnt-always-081901786--finance.html
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump touts his tax overhaul plan as a boon for middle-income Americans, but it would also be likely to help the wealthy — including people like himself."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/tax-group-trump-tax-plan-would-cost-12-trillion-n435666
"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire's pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal.
The conservative Tax Foundation, which has been scoring candidates' tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump's changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion."
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
"Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital."
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-politics-trump-tax-policy-20150928-story.html
"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump proposed a major package of tax cuts on Monday, but offered few specifics on how to pay for them – and experts predicted they would cost untold trillions of dollars."
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/09/trump_tax_plan_would_cost_more_than_10_trillion_over_10_years.php#.VgrL4exViko
"(Washington, D.C.) Donald Trump released a tax plan today that is missing some details. But a preliminary analysis of the plan by Citizens for Tax Justice finds that it would cost more than $10 trillion in its first decade. The plan would reduce taxes on all income groups, but by far the biggest beneficiaries would be the very wealthy.
Following is a statement about the plan by Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice:
“Yet another presidential candidate is making a mockery of populism by trumpeting a massive tax break for the rich as a plan that will benefit average Americans. The top 1 percent of Americans will receive an average tax break of $184,000 per year while the bottom 20 percent will receive an average tax cut of only $250."
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
You just quoted the AP, MSNBC, LA Times, (far left media)
Conservative Tax Foundation (pro Rubio. They love Rubio. they love the Ruby Blows)
Citizens for tax justice is a liberal think tank that is in favor of progressive tax reform
I'm not buying your far left media sound bytes,
But you go right ahead bro
Conservative Tax Foundation (pro Rubio. They love Rubio. they love the Ruby Blows)
Citizens for tax justice is a liberal think tank that is in favor of progressive tax reform
I'm not buying your far left media sound bytes,
But you go right ahead bro
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
What I don't like is singles making less than $25,000/yr. and couples making less than $50,000/yr. won't pay taxes under his plan. That's bullshit. They're the ones receiving benefits and should pay their way just like anyone else.
His reduction in the capital gains tax is reasonable as is the proposal to get rid of the estate and death taxes.
His reduction in the capital gains tax is reasonable as is the proposal to get rid of the estate and death taxes.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
The Associated Press is far left media? You really are disconnected with reality. No one needs more proof to prove that is a true statement beyond what you just said. The AP is the oldest news gathering organization in the United States.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
In the book, Trump decried the current tax code: “Imagine your paycheck was 40 percent higher than it currently is. What could you do with 40 percent more wealth? How many jobs and opportunities for others could you create?
“The longer you really think about it the madder you will get,” he wrote, “especially when you consider the waste, fraud, and abuse the federal government traffics in as it inflicts its self-defeating policies on hard-working Americans.”
Trump spoke out strongly against the shameful way America’s government spends your and my hard-earned tax dollars, which we all pay every year in April. As Trump noted, “But the other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money, trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.”
The great thing about this plan is everyone’s tax bill, which will be lower, can be filled out on the back of a post card. Just think how many billions of dollars that will save individuals and small business owners in fees to accountants and tax-preparation companies. That’s money saved which can be put to more productive, job-creating things.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-bold-income-tax-proposal-this-is-a-big-deal/#ixzz3n9X5VTmy
Yes sir! ....and ban the corrupt IRS while you're at it Trump!
“The longer you really think about it the madder you will get,” he wrote, “especially when you consider the waste, fraud, and abuse the federal government traffics in as it inflicts its self-defeating policies on hard-working Americans.”
Trump spoke out strongly against the shameful way America’s government spends your and my hard-earned tax dollars, which we all pay every year in April. As Trump noted, “But the other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money, trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.”
The great thing about this plan is everyone’s tax bill, which will be lower, can be filled out on the back of a post card. Just think how many billions of dollars that will save individuals and small business owners in fees to accountants and tax-preparation companies. That’s money saved which can be put to more productive, job-creating things.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-unveils-his-bold-income-tax-proposal-this-is-a-big-deal/#ixzz3n9X5VTmy
Yes sir! ....and ban the corrupt IRS while you're at it Trump!
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
And it's just like my father's old Democrat party, it's changed for the worse. It doesn't remotely have the character of the John F. Kennedy era.
Journalism is dead in America and the AP is part of that corruption with their PC games and left wing biased dumbed down reporting tactics.
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
IT takes a certain chutzpah to propose bigger tax cuts than your rival, claim your plan is cheaper and then suggest your sums add up due to “common sense”. This is what Donald Trump, the iconoclastic frontrunner for the Republican nomination, did on the morning of September 28th, when he became the second leading Republican candidate to publish a tax plan, following Jeb Bush’s effort earlier this month. Critics of Mr Bush’s plan said it was a giveaway for high-earners, funded by optimistic assumptions about its effect on growth. On both counts, Mr Trump, who has never suffered from a lack of gall, makes Mr Bush look positively pussyfooted.
The plan burnishes Mr Trump’s Republican credentials by giving high earners whacking tax cuts. Individuals earning more than $150,000 will see their marginal tax rate fall from close to 40% now to 25%, three percentage points lower than under Mr Bush’s plan. Whereas the former Governor of Florida wants merely to double the standard deduction, the amount that can be earned before paying tax, to $11,300, Mr Trump would quadruple it, to $25,000 (or $50,000 for a married couple). This would remove more than half of households from the income tax rolls altogether, he says.
The outdoing does not end there. Mr Trump is more aggressive on corporation tax, too, promising to lower the levy on company profits to 15% rather than 20% under Bush. Furthermore, 15% would be the most any business would pay on their income—including self-employed freelancers. Even with big cuts to income tax, letting freelancers pay only 15% tax on their earnings would create a sharp and unwelcome incentive to masquerade as self-employed.
What would this largesse cost? Mr Bush’s number crunchers reckoned his plan, which is modest in comparison, would reduce annual receipts by $376 billion, or about 7.5%, by 2025, before accounting for its effect on the economy. Allow—optimistically—for a boost to growth of half a percentage point per year, and the cost falls by two thirds. Mr Trump provides no such detailed estimates but claims, incredibly, that his plan pays for itself. In his press conference, Mr Trump suggested that under his stewardship, the economy might achieve annual growth of five or six percent. That would certainly pay for huge tax cuts, but is a fantasy.
Mr Trump does suggest some new sources of revenue. He would eliminate many tax deductions, most of which remain unspecified. In particular, the controversial “carried interest” deduction, beloved of partners in private equity firms and hedge funds, would go. This raises, perhaps, $1 billion-2 billion. But Mr Bush promised this too, so it was included in his costings. Mr Trump would cap the tax-deductibility of debt interest. But Mr Bush would abolish it altogether, saving more. The only part of Mr Trump’s plan which is clearly cheaper than Mr Bush’s pertains to the overseas profits of American corporations. Unlike Mr Bush, Mr Trump would keep taxing these earnings (though companies will no longer be able to defer paying until the money is brought back, ending the incentive to stash cash overseas).
Mr Trump is supposed to be a new kind of politician; a straight-talker who, freed from the usual constraints of politics by his billions, tells it like it is. But promising to fund tax cuts by closing unspecified loopholes is an old political wheeze. Mr Trump says the country’s “top” economists helped to develop his plan; alas, for now they remain anonymous. Any contributor would be wise to stay in the background. Mr Trump’s plan is twaddle.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics
So did The Economist suddenly turn liberal now that they've criticized Trump's plan also?
The plan burnishes Mr Trump’s Republican credentials by giving high earners whacking tax cuts. Individuals earning more than $150,000 will see their marginal tax rate fall from close to 40% now to 25%, three percentage points lower than under Mr Bush’s plan. Whereas the former Governor of Florida wants merely to double the standard deduction, the amount that can be earned before paying tax, to $11,300, Mr Trump would quadruple it, to $25,000 (or $50,000 for a married couple). This would remove more than half of households from the income tax rolls altogether, he says.
The outdoing does not end there. Mr Trump is more aggressive on corporation tax, too, promising to lower the levy on company profits to 15% rather than 20% under Bush. Furthermore, 15% would be the most any business would pay on their income—including self-employed freelancers. Even with big cuts to income tax, letting freelancers pay only 15% tax on their earnings would create a sharp and unwelcome incentive to masquerade as self-employed.
What would this largesse cost? Mr Bush’s number crunchers reckoned his plan, which is modest in comparison, would reduce annual receipts by $376 billion, or about 7.5%, by 2025, before accounting for its effect on the economy. Allow—optimistically—for a boost to growth of half a percentage point per year, and the cost falls by two thirds. Mr Trump provides no such detailed estimates but claims, incredibly, that his plan pays for itself. In his press conference, Mr Trump suggested that under his stewardship, the economy might achieve annual growth of five or six percent. That would certainly pay for huge tax cuts, but is a fantasy.
Mr Trump does suggest some new sources of revenue. He would eliminate many tax deductions, most of which remain unspecified. In particular, the controversial “carried interest” deduction, beloved of partners in private equity firms and hedge funds, would go. This raises, perhaps, $1 billion-2 billion. But Mr Bush promised this too, so it was included in his costings. Mr Trump would cap the tax-deductibility of debt interest. But Mr Bush would abolish it altogether, saving more. The only part of Mr Trump’s plan which is clearly cheaper than Mr Bush’s pertains to the overseas profits of American corporations. Unlike Mr Bush, Mr Trump would keep taxing these earnings (though companies will no longer be able to defer paying until the money is brought back, ending the incentive to stash cash overseas).
Mr Trump is supposed to be a new kind of politician; a straight-talker who, freed from the usual constraints of politics by his billions, tells it like it is. But promising to fund tax cuts by closing unspecified loopholes is an old political wheeze. Mr Trump says the country’s “top” economists helped to develop his plan; alas, for now they remain anonymous. Any contributor would be wise to stay in the background. Mr Trump’s plan is twaddle.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics
So did The Economist suddenly turn liberal now that they've criticized Trump's plan also?
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Trump's claim that his plan is revenue neutral is contingent upon his proposed tax reductions dramatically growing the economy.
Only if the economy improves substantially, will his plan be revenue neutral.
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Trump, of course, has indicated that the plan would be revenue neutral. But is it? The numbers don’t add up. That’s because Trump is banking not on revenue offsets but something bigger, telling CBS Sixty Minutes, “We’re going to grow the economy so fast. If the economy grows the way it should, then we’ll be able to pay for it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/09/28/trumps-tax-plan-promises-no-income-taxes-for-75-million-americans-cuts-for-corporate-america/
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unlikely, but stranger things have happened...
IMO, it is better than the sluggish and disappointing current state of the moribund US economy.
Only if the economy improves substantially, will his plan be revenue neutral.
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Trump, of course, has indicated that the plan would be revenue neutral. But is it? The numbers don’t add up. That’s because Trump is banking not on revenue offsets but something bigger, telling CBS Sixty Minutes, “We’re going to grow the economy so fast. If the economy grows the way it should, then we’ll be able to pay for it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/09/28/trumps-tax-plan-promises-no-income-taxes-for-75-million-americans-cuts-for-corporate-america/
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unlikely, but stranger things have happened...
IMO, it is better than the sluggish and disappointing current state of the moribund US economy.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Well, the NY Times is five years younger than the AP...?
Does any consumer of news believe that the NYT is even remotely objective in it's reporting?
The AP has tilted leftward over the past thirty years or so...
The Economist is far more objective, IMHO.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Well, back to the OP's topic...it appears that Hillary believes that she has Bernie beat...
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"But the fact now that I have so many of my Democratic colleagues, present and former, in the House and the Senate, out in state Houses who are lined up to say, you know, 'This is the person we want to see as president,' is very gratifying," she said. "Because they look at what they think I can do for them."
She didn't mention Sanders' name, but she didn't have to.
The Vermont senator has found himself in the unusual situation of attracting support from more than one out three Democrats nationally, but zero out of more than 250 Democratic members of Congress and governors.
...
And she has locked down support from many of the Democrats who know Sanders best, including former former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and current Gov. Peter Shumlin.
History suggests that endorsements are the best predictor of electoral success in a primary.
Above excerpted from:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clintons-not-so-subtle-message-bernie-sanders-n435236
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
"But the fact now that I have so many of my Democratic colleagues, present and former, in the House and the Senate, out in state Houses who are lined up to say, you know, 'This is the person we want to see as president,' is very gratifying," she said. "Because they look at what they think I can do for them."
She didn't mention Sanders' name, but she didn't have to.
The Vermont senator has found himself in the unusual situation of attracting support from more than one out three Democrats nationally, but zero out of more than 250 Democratic members of Congress and governors.
...
And she has locked down support from many of the Democrats who know Sanders best, including former former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and current Gov. Peter Shumlin.
History suggests that endorsements are the best predictor of electoral success in a primary.
Above excerpted from:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clintons-not-so-subtle-message-bernie-sanders-n435236
it took quite a while for me to get mine..like 8 weeks..but i did get it..when you get it..the feeling..
pretty bold statement from someone who's trailing bernie now in new hampshire.
we're still more than a year out..i don't know anyone who's come forward (house, congress) and officially pledged their support for her..do you? except claire mc caskill and debbie wasserman-shultz and they are both cronies so i could care less..means nothing.
besides you're talking about 250 votes?..those votes are NOT representative of their constituency. Nor does constituency vote their representative.
it's the one out of three that will get him elected.
Last edited: