In typical politician fashion he gives a lot of details that aren’t actually details at all. He does a very good job of making broad generalizations sound like details.
So, given the lack of anything truly substantive here are my thoughts:
Some of his ideas sound good, but may not be in practice. One that stands out is the 8% on repatriation. This actually is an amazing idea, I’ve often championed.
Some of his ideas sound good on paper, are really sort of shitty in reality. Like elimination of AMT. And his brackets look pretty shit IMO, but not enough info. (Can’t be worse than Marco “fuck middle income people in the ass” Rubio.)
Some of his ideas are utter garbage. The veiled threats to take away the deduction of interest? WTF is this dipshit smoking where that actually makes sense? Retarded, even though I’m not supposed to use that word, and comparing that idea to handicapped individuals insults handicapped individuals, the idea is retarded.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I like his plan makes a lot of sense, especially this part:
“Bush will also propose so-called full expensing for businesses. That means companies would be able to immediately write off the cost of their investments instead of having to drag those over a number of years”
[/quote]
Permanente s179? Yawn, we already have it. They just dicker with the limits, applicability and add bonus now and again.
This is really no different than the last, I don’t know, 12+ years.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I like his plan makes a lot of sense, especially this part:
“Bush will also propose so-called full expensing for businesses. That means companies would be able to immediately write off the cost of their investments instead of having to drag those over a number of years”
[/quote]
Permanente s179? Yawn, we already have it. They just dicker with the limits, applicability and add bonus now and again.
This is really no different than the last, I don’t know, 12+ years. [/quote]
Then please tell that to my accountant who says there is no full write off. It must be written off over a period of years and I HATE THAT!
In typical politician fashion he gives a lot of details that aren’t actually details at all. He does a very good job of making broad generalizations sound like details.
So, given the lack of anything truly substantive here are my thoughts:
Some of his ideas sound good, but may not be in practice. One that stands out is the 8% on repatriation. This actually is an amazing idea, I’ve often championed.
Some of his ideas sound good on paper, are really sort of shitty in reality. Like elimination of AMT. And his brackets look pretty shit IMO, but not enough info. (Can’t be worse than Marco “fuck middle income people in the ass” Rubio.)
Some of his ideas are utter garbage. The veiled threats to take away the deduction of interest? WTF is this dipshit smoking where that actually makes sense? Retarded, even though I’m not supposed to use that word, and comparing that idea to handicapped individuals insults handicapped individuals, the idea is retarded. [/quote]
I think he’s releasing a detailed plan today, but I might be mistaken.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I like his plan makes a lot of sense, especially this part:
“Bush will also propose so-called full expensing for businesses. That means companies would be able to immediately write off the cost of their investments instead of having to drag those over a number of years”
[/quote]
Permanente s179? Yawn, we already have it. They just dicker with the limits, applicability and add bonus now and again.
This is really no different than the last, I don’t know, 12+ years. [/quote]
Then please tell that to my accountant who says there is no full write off. It must be written off over a period of years and I HATE THAT!
[/quote]
Depends on what the purchase was, how much income/loss you have etc.
I don’t want to sound like I’m poo-pooing the idea, it’s a good idea, and almost exclusively helps smaller businesses.
If he’s talking about expanding it to real property, lease hold improvements and able to take a company into a loss… I’m not sure it has a snow balls chance in hell of passing. But if he’s talking about making the current limits the new normal… Okay, good. But it isn’t really as wonderful as he makes it sound in the op-ed.
"Donald Trump has clear command of the GOP presidential field with 32% support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
Trump has gained 8 percentage points since August, and enjoys his largest lead to date.
Another political outsider, Dr. Ben Carson, is in second place among Republicans with 19% support. He has surged 10 percentage points since August".
“Together, these two non-politicians hold the support of a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents”.
I really don’t think a Trump/Carson is in the cards…but Trump and Cruz are certainly beginning to show up at events together. (In fact; I think yesterday, Cruz actually “introduced” Trump at an Anti-Iran Deal Rally.
"Donald Trump has clear command of the GOP presidential field with 32% support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
Trump has gained 8 percentage points since August, and enjoys his largest lead to date.
Another political outsider, Dr. Ben Carson, is in second place among Republicans with 19% support. He has surged 10 percentage points since August".
“Together, these two non-politicians hold the support of a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents”.
I really don’t think a Trump/Carson is in the cards…but Trump and Cruz are certainly beginning to show up at events together. (In fact; I think yesterday, Cruz actually “introduced” Trump at an Anti-Iran Deal Rally.
Is “Trump/Cruz” in the making?
Thoughts?
Mufasa
[/quote]
I think Cruz is sailing in Trump’s wake waiting for Trump to run out of gas and implode which could happen at any time. At that moment Cruz is thinking that he will get the Trump supporters. A good strategy for Cruz and also keeps him out of The Donald’s sights for attack. Of course as a consolation prize he is hoping to be Trump’s VP.
If Donald Trump basically calling Fiorina ugly and Carson an okay surgeon that hasn’t really done anything doesn’t hurt him in the polls I’m about done with this race.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Donald Trump basically calling Fiorina ugly and Carson an okay surgeon that hasn’t really done anything doesn’t hurt him in the polls I’m about done with this race. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Donald Trump basically calling Fiorina ugly and Carson an okay surgeon that hasn’t really done anything doesn’t hurt him in the polls I’m about done with this race. [/quote]
I think people don’t give a shit anymore. I think people have realized that many of these guys are just circus show clowns who will say whatever to get elected.
Case in point, yesterday in our state legislature, voters made such a stink about 3 tax proposals that all 3 were shot down, including one that mandated gas rationing in the name of Global Warming.
When these measures were soundly defeated by the public uproar, the Speaker of the Assembly stated the Universe is at stake. I’m not joking here, she literally said the Universe was at stake. She is being removed by Democrats as the Assembly Speaker, as she is now ready for the loony farm.
Case in point, yesterday in our state legislature, voters made such a stink about 3 tax proposals that all 3 were shot down, including one that mandated gas rationing in the name of Global Warming.
[/quote]
I wish that could happen in my state. Anything they put on the back of the ballot just gets passed. I feel like most people just read the words without thinking it through. Last year we approved spending $4 billion to pad teachers union benefits. Excuse me, I meant to say “Technology classroom upgrades.”
Case in point, yesterday in our state legislature, voters made such a stink about 3 tax proposals that all 3 were shot down, including one that mandated gas rationing in the name of Global Warming.
[/quote]
I wish that could happen in my state. Anything they put on the back of the ballot just gets passed. I feel like most people just read the words without thinking it through. Last year we approved spending $4 billion to pad teachers union benefits. Excuse me, I meant to say “Technology classroom upgrades.” [/quote]
The vote for the gas rationing law required a simple majority which Democrats had and it still lost.
On to better news, Hillary campaign staffer caught on video suggesting to violate election laws.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Donald Trump basically calling Fiorina ugly and Carson an okay surgeon that hasn’t really done anything doesn’t hurt him in the polls I’m about done with this race. [/quote]
I think people don’t give a shit anymore. I think people have realized that many of these guys are just circus show clowns who will say whatever to get elected.
Case in point, yesterday in our state legislature, voters made such a stink about 3 tax proposals that all 3 were shot down, including one that mandated gas rationing in the name of Global Warming.
When these measures were soundly defeated by the public uproar, the Speaker of the Assembly stated the Universe is at stake. I’m not joking here, she literally said the Universe was at stake. She is being removed by Democrats as the Assembly Speaker, as she is now ready for the loony farm. [/quote]
Are there any politicians in your state that are not ready for the loony farm?
I’m tempted to say one of the lower tier people like George Pataki. But, guys like that are not spending, or raising any money. They seem to be exclusively in the race to get their point across, or perhaps to remain relevant to be chosen as VP.
I don’t think Rand Paul is going anywhere and I also think his funds are drying up. Unless he lights it up during Wednesdays debate he might be going down the road. Then again this could be wishful thinking on my part.
So far I will be physically incapable of placing a vote for Trump, Clinton, Huckabee, Cruz or Biden. The '16 election may be one I have to throw my vote at the Libertarian chump.
[quote]on edge wrote:
So far I will be physically incapable of placing a vote for Trump, Clinton, Huckabee, Cruz or Biden. The '16 election may be one I have to throw my vote at the Libertarian chump.[/quote]
I agree its really not looking that good, I have not been around for many elections but I would be very surprised if this one was not a record for number of people voting against the opposing party/candidate rather than their preferred choice.
[quote]on edge wrote:
So far I will be physically incapable of placing a vote for Trump, Clinton, Huckabee, Cruz or Biden. The '16 election may be one I have to throw my vote at the Libertarian chump.[/quote]
I agree its really not looking that good, I have not been around for many elections but I would be very surprised if this one was not a record for number of people voting against the opposing party/candidate rather than their preferred choice.[/quote]
Sufiandy:
I think that this is where it’s all headed also.
While there will always be an element of voting “against” others instead of “for” someone; with the exception of 2008, where there was clearly enthusiasm “for” the President…it just appears to me that recent elections have become more and more a case of “holding your nose for the chosen candidate” because they were at least “better” than the alternative.
