The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
781

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Zeb, come on, be objective.[/quote]

That seems to be a problem of yours when the topic turns to Donald Trump. [/quote]

Not really. It seems to be so called conservatives problem actually.

[quote]

Precisely my point, you don’t know and neither do I. So why attack the man until we actually do know? [/quote]

We have his financial disclosure. Lots of capital gains and lot of ordinary income. I would be extremely surprised if he wasn’t in the top bracket.

[quote]

Not necessarily because you and I don’t know the number of deductions that he is currently taking that will no longer be aloud under his proposed plan. [/quote]

He said he’s going to keep the deductions the middle class uses. Those are deduction he will benefit from as well.

[quote]

He might be depending upon the deductions that he will no longer be able to take. We just don’t’ know. But don’t let that stop you from attacking his plan. By the way shouldn’t his plan be judged by how much it helps or hurts the United States and not just him? It seems that there are enough left wing loons who simply want those who are better off financially to shoulder a higher tax burden and attack anything that helps the job creators–But you are not one of them I’m sure. [/quote]

This “plan” is typical Trump. He doesn’t tell you what deductions he’s going to get rid of, you are just supposed to trust him. He also doesn’t tell you what he’s going to cut to neutralize the TEN TRILLION DOLLAR increase to the debt. As conservatives are we just gonna ignore the debt now? Remember, he’s already on record saying he wants universal healthcare in the U.S. (he just reiterated this on 60 minutes) not to mention he’s said we have to keep social security and other entitlement programs. So if he isn’t going to cut entitlements where is he going to get that $10 trillion dollars?
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Listen, cut taxes. I’m all for cutting taxes, but be realistic. You have to cut spending first. If he doesn’t cut spending his plan is worthless.

[quote]

Three problems with your statement: First of all 47% of the people currently pay no tax so life does not change for them…they don’t care what “The Donald” is doing. Secondly, the democrats live to pander to those 47%, if Trump gets in a little pandering himself I’m good with that. Finally, as I have already accurately stated, the Reagan tax plan was also attacked for the same reasons that you suggest and ended up growing the economy by about 20 million jobs! When people, especially job creators, get to keep more of their money the economy is better off. Growth my friend—GROWTH! Look at it this way, Obama taxed us to death and what is going on with the economy as a result? Right! [/quote]

This isn’t the Reagan plan and the economy and government are entirely different today than during the Reagan administration. Trumps plan will probably create some jobs, which is great, but it will drive up debt without substantial offsets.

[quote]

Actually, there was a study done (I actually tried to find it and couldn’t but I will keep trying) which demonstrated that we (voters) first get an emotional impression of a candidate. If we like him/her we then find reasons to like his or her ideas. [/quote]

Sounds great. You might now believe this, but I like Trump. I like Trump the entertainer. I like Trump the businessman. I do not like Trump the candidate because he’s not a conservative.

This just isn’t true. I would of praised Trumps plan had it been at the very least debt neutral. You can’t be for universal healthcare, massive entitlements (social security, medicare, etc…), and be for lower taxes unless you can’t do math.

I’ve never met a conservative that thinks it’s a good idea to only tax 50% of the country…

782


I like the positives; however, I want to know how he plans to deal with the additional $10 trillion in deficit.

784

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’ve never met a conservative that thinks it’s a good idea to only tax 50% of the country…[/quote]

The main selling point of the 16th Amendment was that it would only apply to a very small fraction of the population.[/quote]

Well, assuming that’s true (I’ve no idea), my statement isn’t wrong. I’ve never met a conservative that fought for the 16th amendment’s ratification :slight_smile:

I would think early 20th century conservatives would of opposed the 16th?

786

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I’ve never met a conservative that thinks it’s a good idea to only tax 50% of the country…[/quote]

The main selling point of the 16th Amendment was that it would only apply to a very small fraction of the population.[/quote]

Well, assuming that’s true (I’ve no idea), my statement isn’t wrong. I’ve never met a conservative that fought for the 16th amendment’s ratification :slight_smile:

I would think early 20th century conservatives would of opposed the 16th? [/quote]

They did. The actual introduction in 1909 until its ratification in 1913 was some of the douchiest political maneuvering you can imagine.

Republican Congressman Sereno E. Payne of New York
“As to the general policy of an income tax, I am utterly opposed to it. I believe with Gladstone that it tends to make a nation of liars. I believe it is the most easily concealed of any tax that can be laid, the most difficult of enforcement, and the hardest to collect; that it is, in a word, a tax upon the income of honest men and an exemption, to a greater or lesser extent, of the income of rascals; and so I am opposed to any income tax in time of peaceâ?¦I hope that if the Constitution is amended in this way the time will not come when the American people will ever want to enact an income tax except in time of war.”
This is from the guy who introduced the amendment to the house!

“…the first tax ranged from merely 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income and was only 7% on incomes above $500,000.”

“…in 1939, 26 years after the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, only 5% of the population, counting both taxpayers and their dependents, was required to file returns. Today, more than 80% of the population is under the income tax.”

787

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Zeb, come on, be objective.[/quote]

That seems to be a problem of yours when the topic turns to Donald Trump.

Not really. It seems to be so called conservatives problem actually.[/quote]

Who said that Donald Trump is a conservative? Certainly not me.

[quote]Trump made like $300+ million dollars last year and I don’t believe that was capital gains (maybe it was).

Precisely my point, you don’t know and neither do I. So why attack the man until we actually do know?

We have his financial disclosure. Lots of capital gains and lot of ordinary income. I would be extremely surprised if he wasn’t in the top bracket.

He is in the highest tax bracket that exists otherwise and there is virtually no chance he could of gotten his effective tax rate below 25% and per his plan he would still get certain deduction (like the mortgage interest deduction). His effective rate under the new plan would be lower under the current plan ie it would not cost him a ton of money.[/quote]

I don’t like playing this game. If his tax plan helps him so what? You think he’s trying to get elected by lowering his own taxes? Who cares? Not me. If he actually lowers his own taxes while lowering mine and helping the country I’m good with that.

Or you didn’t pay attention when he said the only deductions he wants to keep are for house mortgage and charitable. Pretty simple.

He said that he is going to grow the economy with those tax deductions. As for cuts that is a bit more complicated as you know.

I really hated that idea!

Tell me how anyone gets elected to the Presidency while promising to cut social security. Senior citizens are the single largest voting block.

Plenty of things have changed but overall the economy is the economy. Cutting taxes will in fact grow the economy. To what degree no one knows. As for spending Congress must weigh in as you know.

As I said above I never said he was a conservative. What he is however is a successful business person with some (some) good ideas. As far as I’m concerned he would be far better than Hillary Clinton on that alone. But, as I have also told you, and am all over the board saying, Marco Rubio is my first choice! But sure if it were Trump vs. Hillary I’d vote for Trump.

On the other hand you have stated that you would not vote for Trump. That helps Hillary or whomever the democrat is get elected. That is something you should think twice about. I assure you whatever you think of Trumps tax plan Clinton and company have something waiting for you that is much worse. Don’t be one of those people who stays home unless they get their ideal candidate, that’s how Romney lost.

As I have already said, I dislike the idea of allowing 50% of the population to pay no taxes. Everyone should pay something even if it is relatively small.

788

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Zeb, come on, be objective.[/quote]

That seems to be a problem of yours when the topic turns to Donald Trump.

Not really. It seems to be so called conservatives problem actually.[/quote]

Who said that Donald Trump is a conservative? Certainly not me. [/quote]

He said he’s a conservative. Don’t you want a conservative in office?

[quote]

[quote]Trump made like $300+ million dollars last year and I don’t believe that was capital gains (maybe it was).

Precisely my point, you don’t know and neither do I. So why attack the man until we actually do know?

We have his financial disclosure. Lots of capital gains and lot of ordinary income. I would be extremely surprised if he wasn’t in the top bracket.

He is in the highest tax bracket that exists otherwise and there is virtually no chance he could of gotten his effective tax rate below 25% and per his plan he would still get certain deduction (like the mortgage interest deduction). His effective rate under the new plan would be lower under the current plan ie it would not cost him a ton of money.[/quote]

I don’t like playing this game. If his tax plan helps him so what? You think he’s trying to get elected by lowering his own taxes? Who cares? Not me. If he actually lowers his own taxes while lowering mine and helping the country I’m good with that.[/quote]

I don’t care if his tax plan helps him. Great if it does. I care if he’s lying about it. I don’t want yet another dishonest person in the oval office, do you?

[quote]

Or you didn’t pay attention when he said the only deductions he wants to keep are for house mortgage and charitable. Pretty simple. [/quote]

That’s not what he said. He said the middle class would get to keep their deductions, which could mean all sorts of things.

[quote]

He said that he is going to grow the economy with those tax deductions. As for cuts that is a bit more complicated as you know. [/quote]

Ya, the tax policy I linked talks about this. 5+ millions jobs. Awesome. Now how’s he going to cover teh $10 Trillion windfall, plus the current deficit, plus the debt?

[quote]

I really hated that idea! [/quote]

Ya, me too.

[quote]

Tell me how anyone gets elected to the Presidency while promising to cut social security. Senior citizens are the single largest voting block. [/quote]

All I’m saying is that he’s dug himself a $10 Trillion dollar hole and I’d like to know how he plans to get out of it while also attacking the debt.

[quote]

Plenty of things have changed but overall the economy is the economy. Cutting taxes will in fact grow the economy. To what degree no one knows. As for spending Congress must weigh in as you know. [/quote]

I’m not disputing that. I want to know how he plans to cover the $10 Trillion dollar windfall he wants to create while promoting socialized healthcare, keeping (assumingly fixing) social security and other entitlements, and attacking the debt.

I want to know how all of the candidates plan to do this, not just Trump. At least he’s provided a tax plan.

[quote]

As I said above I never said he was a conservative. What he is however is a successful business person with some (some) good ideas. As far as I’m concerned he would be far better than Hillary Clinton on that alone. But, as I have also told you, and am all over the board saying, Marco Rubio is my first choice! But sure if it were Trump vs. Hillary I’d vote for Trump.

On the other hand you have stated that you would not vote for Trump. That helps Hillary or whomever the democrat is get elected. That is something you should think twice about. I assure you whatever you think of Trumps tax plan Clinton and company have something waiting for you that is much worse. Don’t be one of those people who stays home unless they get their ideal candidate, that’s how Romney lost. [/quote]

You and I just disagree here. I’m not voting for someoen I don’t believe at least on some level holds conservative principles and that I can trust will do what is best for the country. At this point that isn’t Trump. Like I’ve previously said I believe he hurts the GOP far more in the long run than he helps them over 4-8 years.

He claims to be a conservative yet he is for:

Giant new border wall plus deporting 12M people = bigger government
$10 Trillion windfall from tax plan = more deficit and debt
Socialized healthcare = business as usual = big government

The list goes on and on.

How can you support that (in general not specifically you).

I agree.

790

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As I have already said, I dislike the idea of allowing 50% of the population to pay no taxes. Everyone should pay something even if it is relatively small.
[/quote]

Counterpoint: Everyone paying something in the form of income tax is a relatively new phenomenon.

For the first ~175 years of this republic we managed to get by without everyone paying income tax.[/quote]

The problem is Push, we didn’t always have a welfare state. We can’t have half of the country with no stake in the game when they continuously force the other half to give them free shit.

This is why property ownership used to be a precursor to voting rights.

791

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You and I just disagree here. I’m not voting for someoen I don’t believe at least on some level holds conservative principles and that I can trust will do what is best for the country. At this point that isn’t Trump. Like I’ve previously said I believe he hurts the GOP far more in the long run than he helps them over 4-8 years.[/quote]

You are not thinking logically my friend. Trump may not give you 100% of what you want. Let’s say he only gives you 50% or even less, say 30% of what you want. Hillary and company give you 0%, nada…ZIP! And in addition while she is there she will appoint the most left wing wacko judges to the Supreme court and other high courts…is that what you want? All I am saying is make the logical choice if we are faced with Trump vs. Clinton.

It amazes me that some people will throw up their hands and walk away unless they get 100% (or close) to what they want. Anything else in life you would make the best choice possible given two choices. But in politics for some reason some people want to walk away rather than make the smartest choice of the two–which IRONICALLY helps the person that least meets your needs get elected. Think about that for a while…

[quote]He claims to be a conservative yet he is for:

Giant new border wall plus deporting 12M people = bigger government[/quote]

I disagree we need a giant wall and in the end it will cost us less rather than having millions flow over the boarder having children and hanging on the welfare roles…not that all of them will.

Not necessarily we have to see how the whole thing plays out relative to cutting spending which as you know (for the third time) has much to do with Congress

I agree with you on this 100%! Bad, bad idea.

[quote]The list goes on and on.[/quote] No actually you hit the big ones.

[quote]How can you support that (in general not specifically you).
[/quote]

I could only support him if he were running against one of the top running democrats. In other words I am being logical and voting for the most conservative candidate of the two. I assure you whatever Trump has concocted will look fairly conservative vs. anything Hillary Clinton and company come up with. A better questions is this: how can you support Hillary Clinton by staying home?

792

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As I have already said, I dislike the idea of allowing 50% of the population to pay no taxes. Everyone should pay something even if it is relatively small.
[/quote]

Counterpoint: Everyone paying something in the form of income tax is a relatively new phenomenon.

For the first ~175 years of this republic we managed to get by without everyone paying income tax.[/quote]

By all means ditch the income tax. But do it for everyone not just half the country.

793

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

This is why property ownership used to be a precursor to voting rights.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t even suggest that we go that far. How about this, if you have not worked for 6 months in a row you don’t get to vote.

That seems reasonable to me.

794

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

As I have already said, I dislike the idea of allowing 50% of the population to pay no taxes. Everyone should pay something even if it is relatively small.
[/quote]

Counterpoint: Everyone paying something in the form of income tax is a relatively new phenomenon.

For the first ~175 years of this republic we managed to get by without everyone paying income tax.[/quote]

The problem is Push, we didn’t always have a welfare state. We can’t have half of the country with no stake in the game when they continuously force the other half to give them free shit.

This is why property ownership used to be a precursor to voting rights.
[/quote]

Thank God we fixed that problem, right? We’re so much more advanced and civilized than “people”(in quotations because who really wants to be part of the same species as those old timers?) of the past*.

*Of course, I guess it’s possible that we screw up more each time we fix.

796

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The problem is Push, we didn’t always have a welfare state.
[/quote]

Precisely.

And some might speculate, correctly even, that the income tax and welfare state don’t just have a correlative relationship but rather a causative one.

Whadda ya think?
[/quote]

Absolutely. Couple graduated income tax rates with direct withholding and you have a guaranteed revenue stream to buy votes with social programs and ultimately punish productivity and promote government dependence.

798

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

You and I just disagree here. I’m not voting for someoen I don’t believe at least on some level holds conservative principles and that I can trust will do what is best for the country. At this point that isn’t Trump. Like I’ve previously said I believe he hurts the GOP far more in the long run than he helps them over 4-8 years.[/quote]

You are not thinking logically my friend. Trump may not give you 100% of what you want. Let’s say he only gives you 50% or even less, say 30% of what you want. Hillary and company give you 0%, nada…ZIP! And in addition while she is there she will appoint the most left wing wacko judges to the Supreme court and other high courts…is that what you want? All I am saying is make the logical choice if we are faced with Trump vs. Clinton.

It amazes me that some people will throw up their hands and walk away unless they get 100% (or close) to what they want. Anything else in life you would make the best choice possible given two choices. But in politics for some reason some people want to walk away rather than make the smartest choice of the two–which IRONICALLY helps the person that least meets your needs get elected. Think about that for a while… [/quote]

I don’t need a candidate to be anywhere near 100% in line with my stance on issues. Not voting for Trump does not help Clinton.

[quote]

[quote]He claims to be a conservative yet he is for:

Giant new border wall plus deporting 12M people = bigger government[/quote]

I disagree we need a giant wall and in the end it will cost us less rather than having millions flow over the boarder having children and hanging on the welfare roles…not that all of them will. [/quote]

We do not need a giant wall. No other country in the world has a giant wall anymore. It’s a waste of money and it will be our money that is wasted on it.

[quote]

Not necessarily we have to see how the whole thing plays out relative to cutting spending which as you know (for the third time) has much to do with Congress [/quote]

Is this one of those we’ve gotta pass it to see what happens sort of deals? That didn’t work out so well last time.

I know it has to do with Congress, that is my point. The Dems in Congress are not going to allow the kind of cuts needed to make Trumps tax plan work.

[quote]

I agree with you on this 100%! Bad, bad idea. [/quote]

Well, that just doesn’t work for me. If my choice is a steaming pile of shit, a week old pile of cold shit, or neither I choose neither.

Staying home does not support Hillary, that is ridiculous.

799

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Staying home does not support Hillary, that is ridiculous. [/quote]

One less vote for the republican puts Hillary Clinton, or whomever the democrats nominate that much closer to a win.

If everyone who would have voted republican stayed home Clinton would win for sure. Think about it.

You can rationalize not participating anyway you want I suppose, but don’t lie to yourself. The democrats would like you to stay home if you are not voting for their candidate.

But, relax I don’t see Trump hanging in their and winning the nomination. We have a long way to go and The Donald will not have the staying power. I think his shtick gets old rather fast.

But you never know…

800

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
The problem is Push, we didn’t always have a welfare state.
[/quote]

Precisely.
[/quote]

That’s not completely correct…although federal involvement is recent.
There has always been some form of public ‘Poor Relief System’.
Social Welfare History Project Poor Relief in the Early America

**Disclaimer: The current system is out of control and in need of an overhaul that alters the incentives.