The DON / redux

[Gordon Gray]

So, what else could they do but say the Trump administration was dealing with Russia illegally?

There is much more out there if you look.

Hi Brad,

For the record, they include many Republicans as well as many in the "Federal Government intellegiance gathering community" so I'm not sure what you are inferring.

And there's a lot of stuff out there, the question is "is it true or not"?

Best,

Gordon

PS: As to wether a crimes were committed (illegal activities), the Special Prosecutor recently appointed by the Attorney Generals Office (Trump Administration) will hopefully determine if any laws were broken or not. And I assume you are not trying to "deflect" the current issue at hand by mentioning Obama and Clinton. Seems like that's a common retort these days by folks that support Trump.

 

[Brad225]

Gordon, where ever the investigation leads is fine with me. Anyone involved should be held accountable under the law and constitution.

I am basing my comment on past practices of all sides.

We have different feelings but I believe you like myself just want the truth, though I don't know if that ever happens with government.

Brad

 

[twich54]

Amen to that Brad !

 

[timm]

Gordon, where ever the investigation leads is fine with me. Anyone involved should be held accountable under the law and constitution.

I am basing my comment on past practices of all sides.

We have different feelings but I believe you like myself just want the truth, though I don't know if that ever happens with government.

Brad

Unfortunately - I agree with you - but it will boil down to 'whose truth' .. any administration ...and I mean ANY administration will probably have impeachable issues if you turn over enough rocks.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

Unfortunately - I agree with you - but it will boil down to 'whose truth' .. any administration ...and I mean ANY administration will probably have impeachable issues if you turn over enough rocks.

True or not this presidency is beyond ANYTHING in recent history. Trump is so far past what is remotely acceptable it is stunning.

I almost think that the only reason the GOP wants this huge tax cut for the wealthy is because the know it won't last and when the Democrats turn it back, they'll have something to campaign on. Given that this tax cut will only put us even further in debt just like Trump's actions to hurt the ACA, all they are doing is hurting this country very badly by ANY conservative metric out there.

All they are doing is catering to their billionaire friends. WE DESPARATELY need to get rid of Citizen's united, and get as much money out of politics as we can.

 

[Rich]

Where are all these Conservative deficit hawks who were so vocal during Obama's presidency? Those who railed against economic stimulus packages when our economy desperately needed them, who preferred to shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling? Where are they now? *crickets*

Apparently, deficits only matter when the democrats want to give money to poor people. When republicans want to wage war, or give tax cuts to the rich, they suddenly don't matter at all. And now Trump is pulling out the old BS about tax cuts growing the economy, a theory which has been proven wrong multiple times (e.g. the Bush tax cuts and the Kansas debacle). This is misdirection and a clear obfuscation of the FACT that these tax cuts will balloon the deficit. But not a peep out of the supposed deficit hawks (save for Corker, who can suddenly speak truth to power now that he no longer needs conservative votes).

 

[Brad225]

I'm sure some part of the Obama stimulus package did some good though i can't tell you what that would be.

I believe your statement "deficits only matter when democrat want to give money to poor people" is absurd and way over played. With that in mind I personally don't know anyone on either side that doesn't think people that who have health issues, physical issues or issues that prevent them from properly taking care of themselves should not be helped financially and receive medical care.

I believe there are a substantial number of people on welfare, assistance, extended unemployment or what you would like to call it that are able to work but won't because they can live on the funds the government will give them and work under the table for extra money if needed. If you are capable of working than you should work not collect free money. If your wages are to low improve yourself and get a better job. That is where your "Conservative deficit hawks" I know have a problem.

I don't thing anyone here doesn't want all people to be successful. People need to have self respect and a reason to better themselves. Handing them things will never achieve that.

If you have kids and you give them an allowance/money and never have any expectations of them doing anything to earn it by helping the family you shouldn't be surprised when they never move out of your basement.


If the corporate tax structure is such that companies keep there money here and grow business at some point the hourly wage will increase due to the need for more workers and a percentage will go back to work on their own.

Until there is an overhaul of the tax system, whether that is flat tax or a sales tax system where the more you have the more you spend and the more taxes you will pay we are destined to have problems. It will take someone much smarter than me to figure that one out but the graduated system will probably never be the most fair approach.


As far as Corker and other politicians that get to the point they don't need our votes any more. It only shows how truly dishonest and self serving the majority of the people that claim to represent us are.

I truly don't think all of us here are that far apart in the end result we are looking for. The problem to me seems that the extreme pendulum swing to the Rep-Dem-Soc. (though I don't know how it swings in 3 extreme directions) of politicians who appear to need to keep us with so much distain for the other parties/people their job security will be guaranteed in perpetuity.

 

[twich54]

Good post Brad, as for your last paragraph.......it's done with smoke and mirrors, i.e. 'fake news' !

 

[timm]

Nice posts guys. So, re the tax plan. I went and looked at my returns last year. I was in the 25% bracket and had 20,400 itemized. The new plan - puts me in the 25% bracket I must assume and gives me 20k of standard deduction. Seems like a small increase for me.

So - has anyone thought about what this plan could do to the housing market? Right now- if I was a renter?? I would be all in on this plan!! If you have a loan under 300k on your house- it seems like a wash - since the standard deduction essentially wipes out the mortgage interest and any other moderate deductions. And my understanding is that your taxes on your house would no longer be deductible. I don't consider myself poor - but this doesn't seem to work for me. Millennials living in their parents basements?? Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

It may drop the value of homes.

The irony is that I don't think young people should be tethered to a home for a little while so they can be mobile and follow work and I don't think the government should use social engineering to promote home ownership or marriage among other things.

This situation bothers me because losing this deduction will blow many people's budgets, even though I know the deductions are actually more of a benefit to the wealthy with larger mortgages and I personally haven't had a mortgage to deduct for years.

The girl who cuts my hair ( same age as my daughter ) and her husband just bought a house and they were planning on tax deductions when they purchased it so they could fix it up. I feel bad for young kids like them who were counting on this deduction.

As it stands these tax cuts will benefit me personally but be horrible for this country as a whole and put another stake in the coffin with the middle class in it.

 

[timm]

Well, yes. Someone with the 500k mortgage - well they won't use the standard deduction. But they lose out on other deductible items - like the 10-15k in tax they pay on that large property as an example. That is a loser for the rich. A young kid not making a lot gets instant deductions - as do the poorer people making a family income lower than most.

I would say where it favors the rich is on lower taxes on businesses. The supposed offset is more jobs for normal people. That is a 'wait n see' item. But anything that makes this country more competitive globally I am for.

For myself - someone in the upper middle. It doesn't appear to do anything from a personal standpoint. I can see this working for a lot of people - just not me. I am not uber rich - nor am I poor. I haven't over extended on my mortgage yet probably live in one of the most costly communities in Michigan.

From what I can tell this works for people that have nothing, have a lot, have a little something ...but not for people that have a little more than something (upper middle)

 

[Rich]

I would say where it favors the rich is on lower taxes on businesses. The supposed offset is more jobs for normal people. That is a 'wait n see' item. But anything that makes this country more competitive globally I am for.

No need to "wait n see" to know what's going to happen here. Just look to the example set by Kansas: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/gop-tried-trump-style-tax-cuts-kansas-n812701

 

[timm]

No need to "wait n see" to know what's going to happen here. Just look to the example set by Kansas: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/gop-tried-trump-style-tax-cuts-kansas-n812701

Seems like that article kind of gives a fairly balanced reporting stating there is a belief that at a state level things may be different and that tax cuts are obviously not the only game in town when it comes to creating a growing economy. They also seem to indicate that they have identified loop holes to close. Now.... whether they will close them... hell I've heard that for 40 years!!

Honestly - I don't trust any of them to do the right thing. And given that is an accepted premise - why would you hand over more of your money in the form of taxes and tell them to 'do what is best' ... I'm not that philanthropic - especially when it revolves around the expectation that our government will spend it wisely.

 

[Rich]

Gee, if only we had some example of this model being applied on a national level...

Wait a minute, didn't Bush jr. push through some tax cuts, which greatly benefited the wealthy, with the promise of spurring economic growth? Two recessions later (the second of which was almost as bad as the Great Depression) and you would think people would start to get a clue. Look at a historical chart of GDP growth rates. Look at the average growth rates in the 80's and 90's compared to the growth rates in the 2000's, after the Bush tax cuts. There was no noticeable positive effects from these tax cuts on our economy. The only obvious effects were to reduce revenues and balloon the deficit, which have a negative effect on the economy (and one which is still impacting us today). How many times do we need to repeat these failed experiments before people get a clue?

To understand better the myth republicans are trying to pull here, do some research into Keynes original theory. His whole point originally was that cutting taxes during a bad recession, when combined with cutting spending in an equal amount so you don't increase the deficit, would temporarily jump start the economy and pull you out of recession sooner. He never suggested it should be permanent or that it would spur growth indefinitely. But republicans have *******ized this theory and now pretend that cutting taxes and spending over the long term would magically spur outsized economic growth indefinitely. This is an economic pipe dream. And it has been proven false multiple times. The Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Brownback tax cuts in Kansas. None of them produced outsized economic growth for any period of time. And in the case of Kansas, they resulted in just the opposite. Anyone who falls for this myth at this point is just being willfully ignorant.

 

[RCHeliGuy]

The irony about trickle down economics is that assuming it once worked, there is much less chance for it to work today.

Companies USED TO employee a larger number of people per revenue generated and had more middle class jobs.

However companies on average have become much more efficient which puts more money in the hands of the owners and does not spread the wealth nearly as much.

The mid tier is being decimated, and the people at the top make much more and pay a lot less in wages with a higher percentage of the employees being lower paying jobs.

This also points to why we hear so many minimum wage arguments. We have a lot more families with parents working multiple part time jobs without benefits to try to make ends meet.

What Reagan started was the destruction of our middle class which has continued relentlessly since then. Granted some of the trends were already starting before he took office, but when he dramatically cut taxes for the wealthy the middle class destruction went into high gear.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I'm sure some part of the Obama stimulus package did some good though i can't tell you what that would be.

When i was working for Teton County, we received funds to build a "Teenage Crisis Shelter" in Jackson. A much needed facility that has helped numerous young folks with physiological / mental issues.

 

[Brad225]

That is wonderful to hear Gordon, I truly mean that. I would very much like to hear of other benefits from the money spent.
It would be great if the media would spend some time speaking of the good that was done.

The only down side to this is the Trillions of dollars that didn't really do anything but be a give away. If more of the money spent would have gone to things like this we would be a better country for it.

 

[timm]

The minimum wage argument. Since when was minimum wage meant to feed a family? Try NEVER. You want to kill the middle class - bump it to 15/hr so the Big Mac meal costs 10-12 bucks. Good grief. In every case it feels like throwing your money down a hole.

I still don't see the logic in handing more money over to a group (congress) that continues to misappropriate it. This is an old topic - just like objective/subjective.

 

[timm]

I just read this on the Washington Post? I guess the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for an investigation of Trump - Russia during the campaign ? The slimy world of politics. As expected. We don't need a special investigator. We have the Clinton campaign and the DNC to do it for us. I'm sure with a very fair approach. Of course. Why did Trump win again?? Oh right ...how Clintonesque.

 

[Brad225]

I just read this on the Washington Post? I guess the Clinton campaign and DNC paid for an investigation of Trump - Russia during the campaign ? The slimy world of politics. As expected. We don't need a special investigator. We have the Clinton campaign and the DNC to do it for us. I'm sure with a very fair approach. Of course. Why did Trump win again?? Oh right ...how Clintonesque.

Yes, there are now multiple investigations. The person in the middle of the bribery, extortion connected to the Uranium sale to Russia is possibly losing their protection and that will be huge problem for those involved.