Sorry, been doing the family stuff during the holiday weekend and didn't get back to a computer until very recently. Before I even venture a guess into what you think I should answer, I doubt anything I type will get you to rethink how you feel about the current political situation, especially considering you stated you don't even like Trump. My guess is that what I think the average American needs probably doesn't line up with yours. I think a family of four making $54K/annually (average 2014-15 family from Cheatsheet, CNN, and Quora) needs economic advantages like cheaper health care. Trump's plan to allow for cheaper prescriptions will try to address this, but dismantling things like Medicaid to states just because it saves dollars is going to harm those who need it the most. You can probably guess which states will take advantage of the "let's block free money" platform. Maybe I'm just more of a "that which you did for the least of these" kind of person, and it doesn't seem like Trump (or most conservatives by any Congressional estimates) is willing to force taxpayers to pay for something that hardly anyone uses. This flies in the face of accomplishments that Reagan and Bush II championed. But the times have changed. I got it from a Washington Post article, but if you google "Business Week Trump," about 20 articles come up questioning how much he's worth. I think the point is that his business acumen, which is basically what gives him the ability to run for the most powerful position in the country, is either on par or worse than how well the average "$100-millionaire" fared from the 1970s to today. His claims of being self-made ring true and deep with many who will vote for him. Forbes and Bloomberg had his wealth at $4.5B and $2.9B. Forbes actually indexed it here. The closest estimate to what Trump says his wealth is was still about $1.7B below Trump's claim ($8.3B instead of $10B). But I don't think his claims about his wealth is what would make him a bad president. No facts or logic? He's literally a failed sports team owner who allowed his team to flounder with the ill-fated "let's move our games to the fall to compete with the NFL" crap so that he could liquidate. I figured sports fans already knew that about him. I should have been more clear. I think when people started questioning what Romney was doing at Bain during the 2012 election cycle, it ended up being part of his undoing. He was basically the Steve Patterson of the business world, or so they would have us believe. I don't think Romney and Trump have the same experiences or policies, but I know that when the media wants to take something far enough, they'll get people to question Trump. So far, it appears that "being Trump" has been enough to overcome a lot of his flawed statements or failed ventures in the past, but if politicos want the information to come out, like why he's reluctant to reveal certain figures while Romney wasn't, then it'll probably happen between now and November. Like I said, this isn't about how much he's worth. It's about translating what he's learned on the path to what would make him a good president. I think what he's learned is a lot of corporate gamesmanship that keeps him from paying a lot of taxes and affords him opportunities to talk about how great he is. I think that pales in comparison to actual policy making. Think about all of the policy that Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Walker, etc. have had their hands on. Not that they're the best candidates ever, considering they lost to him, but at least they understand what it takes to create it. I think Trump and his voters just believe that he'll surround himself with people who will create policy, but Trump has never been one to let others do the work. In reality is means Clinton is up by 4-6 points.
What is "free money"? Yep, except for a few reasons, forcing people to pay for other peoples' "x" is an idea most people that have to pay the bill have a problem with. I'm okay with national defense, care of the elderly in need, the mentally and physically handicapped, children in need, and foster care children that age out of the system as long as the stay with the "program"). The problem arises when people like you and Hillary decide that the "free money" should go to so many more places -see $500million to teach foreign children to read, billions to foreign countries for who knows what, bridges to nowhere, training illegal immigrants how to get "free money" from the U.S, Hillary's plan to allow illegals to buy healthcare under the ACA (which means the taxpayer subsidizes their healthcare costs), and a thousand or more other reasons. Stupid comment. He's one of 1000 or so people out of 7-8 billion that have become billionaires. Like him or not, that is a huge accomplishment in the business world. Yes, he's on par with other billionaires that have accomplished the same incredible business feat. I apologize, I thought you said he was okay with losing money to look like a bad ***. I didn't know you meant he "allowed his team to flounder", as opposed to "he took a risk that didn't pan out". Yes, the media employs many liberals, and their constant criticism of republicans does affect the way uninformed, less intellectually curious voters think. You also failed to address a few of the other baseless criticisms you made, but keep on writing your fiction. Honestly, you seem so partisan that either the truth doesn't seem to be important to you, or you cannot distinguish truth from fiction.
No it's not. But it is about how he makes great decisions and knows how to surround himself with great people. It's about how he made smart business decisions to get that wealth. Anybody can bash him about his knowledge about foreign affairs right now. I'm not worried about that because really no President knows what they should. But a good leader will depend on the professionals around him to give the information he needs and advice on how to handle certain situations. A great leader will use the smart people around him. I believe Obama never did that. The foreign affairs is just an example of having smart people around him that I believe he will use. Not saying you or others said anything about that issue.
Good article, Deez. I think it should be more geared towards coming up with a coherent strategy in the Capitol building (and not Trump from the WH) in order to win people over who otherwise buy into the power-mongering rhetoric. Many of the policies listed regarding immigration and taxes seem like common sense. But I don't see a lot of the guys (especially in the House) backing off their claims that got them elected in the first place. The article even hits on one of the big examples: lowering taxes for the super-rich. GOP candidates regularly get elected on the promise to lower taxes for everyone so that the wealth trickles down. That they'll get rid of the death tax and your progeny will never feel the pain/suffering associated with giving up money to the government. These claims resonate with the average GOP voter, who, by the way, will never have these claims apply to them. But it might apply one day because of the American Dream! And how if I just work hard enough, I, too, will be able to avoid a death tax passed on to my kids, because my wife and I will have an estate of $10.9 million. But I liked this quote, especially in the current climate: "The only way that Republicans can actually win more Hispanics or African-Americans is by expanding their party’s vision of the American nation to fully include those voters and by persuading them that the party cares about their fate." Trump does nothing to solve for this. Except eating a burrito bowl and saying that he loves the Hispanics associated with it. If we're going to be nationalist, then at least admit that the concerns of Americans with different viewpoints are valid. It's going to take a heck of a uniter to accomplish this, and Trump really isn't that guy. I thought Kasich was.
This attitude is a problem Horns 11. I have met many (more than 20) people that have met or surpassed the level of wealth mentioned after starting companies with initial capital of $200,000 or $300,000. It is definitely within reach if you know your industry, are willing to sacrifice some security and take the risk of starting and owning a business, and, yes, be willing to work hard. I even know a guy that started working when he was 11 years old chopping cotton for $1 an hour in central Texas, somehow paid his own way to U.T. and to graduate school, worked for 15 years in his industry, took a risk and bought a small business, and within 15 years sold that business for more than the amount mentioned above. By the way, wealth doesn't "trickle down" in our economy. Wealth "trickles up", and only does so if anything remains after all of the labor, materials, equipment, rent and taxes are paid. "Trickle down" is just another of the many misnomers used by liberals to deceive the public.
Then you know many blessed people. Your example of a cotton chopper who sold a business for more than $10 million isn't the norm... especially considering less than 3.5 percent of American millionaires fall over the $10 million threshold. You obviously work in an industry where this kind of stuff happens, and you should be proud. But if you hear Marco Rubio giving his "American Dream" speech from the campaign, and how if only you picked yourself up by your bootstraps, you, too, can share in that dream, it's not going to apply to the vast majority of listeners. Like others pointed out to me earlier in the thread, if it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. Well, maybe it does in the circles you roll in. And your definition of "trickle up" isn't the same that Keynes uses.
If working long long hard hours, sacrificing day to day comforts, new clothes cars trinkets vacations etc etc etc can be thought easy then yes everyone would do it. What hogwash. There is nothing easy about it just as there is nothing easy about being an athlete at the top of their game. ask Vince if it was easy. But wait you say Vince had talent. Why yes he did and those people who made successes of their endeavors had talent as well, they were also willing to sacrifice work hard and do whatever it took to make it. If it only takes talent what happens to the athlete who appeared to have it all then throw it away?
Seems like we agree? Maybe my sarcasm meter is off. Of course it's not easy. I'm arguing further that it's not only difficult, but nearly impossible for the average voter to attain a level of wealth in which your family would have to pay a death tax. But iatrogenic knows like 20 people it applies to, so it's more attainable than the average person thinks. Or maybe we just have really different definitions of "average."
It's not average or easy, but it has been done many times. Just keep choppin that cotton. If you want average results, do average things.
Yeah, if only I had your foresight and work ethic, I'd scrape up enough gumption to get mine while the getting is good. Death tax, here we come, kids! You know I meant statistically average. I guess I forgot that during election seasons, leaving that kind of stuff out of political rhetoric doesn't command the jeers or the donations. Read Deez's article and comment on whether you think the stuff about taxation is fair and a good strategy for the GOP to use.
Expanding their party's vision? In other words expand it by offering them everything free to get their vote. Got it!
You made that up. The articles never advocates for more handouts, rather, smart reforms to existing entitlements. Or maybe that was just your unveiled racist attempt at humor?
LOL If anything, making minorities dependent on Government is the racist issue. Libs try to own them by paying them for their votes. But your comment is typical of libs to try to silence others by using the "R" word.
We would need to address each of the concerns individually. Maybe they are valid, maybe they are not. No need to broadly grant legitimacy to every complaint someone wants to make. I'm not making a comparison between us. I'm just letting you know that it's possible to hit that level of wealth even if you start from nil. I know you meant statistically average. The only two things I like about Trump are his tax and immigration stances. See his website for those. The article actually states that there is virtue to tax cuts for the high earners, but then states that it shouldn't be done in order to repair a "breach of trust". I could go on and on about the federal government's breach of trust, but that breach won't be repaired by keeping taxes at the same level for people earning $250K or more.
"I know ****'s bad right now with all that starving ********. And the dust storms, we're running out of French fries and burrito coverings. . ." That was basically Trump's convention speech.
I'd argue that it applies so many of the listeners that we've forgotten that it applies at all - like frogs in boiling water, but in a god way. There are a lot more problematic taxes, regulations, and other government pains in the *** associated with death and wills and inheritance than just "the" death tax.
That judge is clearly anti-Trump. Trump's public bullying of Curiel combined with his statement yesterday that he'll direct the justice department to reopen the HRC investigation if he becomes POTUS displays that Trump sees our judicial system as a tool to achieve his desired outcome. Not since Nixon (fired the Special Prosecutor on Watergate) have we seen a POTUS candidate demonstrate a predisposition to twist "justice" to their desire. Yes, I'm fully aware that HRC obfuscated and lied during the investigation of her email. I see that as different than leveraging the Justice system for political/personal motives.
Actually he wants HRC to face the Judicial System that Obama is blocking. Nobody is above the law. Hopefully it will be a judge that has deep GOP roots just so we can see all the crying by the left that she can't get a fair trial.
Uh, then why exactly did she do it? And here is another secret - Obama has been doing it for 8 years.
What did Obama block again? Look, any peon would be in Leavenworth had they done what HRC did. There are different rules for the power elite though. Did Patreus do any jail time? Scooter Libby? Oliver North? I take James Comey at his word that the decision not to recommend charges was his. He's a registered Republican and was well respected by both parties throughout his confirmation process. As much as I'd agree that HRC is dishonest in this process, Comey has operated with integrity in the time he's been FBI Director.
I agree SH that the decision was his but don't agree that there were not some nefarious outside influences in that decision like, oh ****, this is Hillary R Clinton.
