The Trump Presidency Thread

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Erin Burnett‏Verified account

@ErinBurnett

Trump continues to slam former US intel leaders: “I mean, give me a break, they are political hacks...I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey..So you look at that and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with them”

 

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

why are they wearing matching coats?

[Fenxis 99]

ambiguously gay duo

[Fenxis 99]

.or do you think the Clintons and Soros and Gates of the world don't use tax laws....so stop the chicken little, it is all and only trump routine and maybe there could be an interesting conversation. Until then just more fake news!

 

LOL; Gates, Buffet, and the Clintons have all pushed for higher taxes on the rich.

[Balloon guy 158]

LOL; Gates, Buffet, and the Clintons have all pushed for higher taxes on the rich.

 

Look at how their companies use tax laws, like NetJet. They find every way to not pay taxes. Then on their own money they talk about higher taxes.

 

NetJet could have just handed over the $500mill it owed without fighting it if they were so tax friendly.

 

And Gates? He;s got a little bit of the hypocrisy problem

 

 

getting Microsoft out of about $1.5 billion in taxes a year

 

 

 

not Clinton, he just uses charitable organizations to dodge paying any taxes. Like how he uses his Canadian branch to receive shady offerings then transfer them to the US without having to disclose the names from the Canadian part of the same slush fund.

 

3 guys who tell you about the hundreds of dollars they give away while they keep millions

[Balloon guy 158]

and when the asset is sold by the heirs they will only pay taxes on the increase in it's value from the time they inherited.

 

buy asset for $100,000 in 1990

asset is worth $10,000,000 in 2017

 

If the owner sells the shares before they die they pay capital gains tax on the increase.

 

If they die their heirs inherit the asset and for tax purposes the cost price is $10,000,000 so no tax is ever paid on the increase from $100,000 to $10,000,000.

 

It's the perfect crime.

 

Buy a stock, with post tax dollars, watch it become huge; making yourself super rich.

 

Then you DIE and don't have to pay any taxes on it!

 

It's genius! There is no downside...well except for the dying part.

 

 

The government is ENTITLED to all monies. You have no right to gain ANY without giving them their share.

 

Work your job until April 23rd and give every penny to the government, every year. That is your duty, because the government is very efficient and careful with your money.

 

How dare anyone try to keep their money.

 

 

Besides, they will probably just blow it on investing in a new home or a yacht..putting hundreds of middle class people to work so they can have nice things. It's so unfair.

[Balloon guy 158]

Turns out Trump didn't ruin the economy.

 

Turns out Trump didn't ruin our relations with China

 

Turns out Trump didn't destroy America's image around the world

 

His latest tweet may be my favorite of all time.

[Fenxis 99]

3 guys who tell you about the hundreds of dollars they give away while they keep millions

 

And how is lowering the income tax going to get people do stop abusing these loopholes?

 

Just a year ago you swore until you were blue in the face that Trump declaring bankruptcy 4 times made him a savvy business and the fact that he used actual dubious loopholes in tax code to declare illegitimate tax losses made him the uber leader.

 

Look in the mirror for half the stuff you bitch about.

[Fenxis 99]

His latest tweet may be my favorite of all time.

 

Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend

 

LULWUT

[Fenxis 99]

 

Here's what NK actually said about Trump. And the fact he has gone from wanting to carpet bomb Pyonyang with nukes to thinking that they can be buds kind of backs that up.

[Fenxis 99]

Turns out Trump didn't ruin the economy.

 

Also short-term myopic thinking that ****ing over actual conservative econonomics

 

Bush slashes regulations on banks -> Banks **** over people (and themselves) -> Big recession and bailouts -> new bipartisan financial regulations -> Trump strips these out.

 

The market isn't going to fall over but he's removing the safety barriers.

[brvheart 1,753]

If Trump is taken down (rightfully) by anything, it's going to be because of these sexual harassment charges. The main hurdle that the dems have to taking him down for real is how they handle Franken and any other Dems that will be exposed in the coming months. If they quickly get rid of them, they will be able to take down Trump. If they let Franken stay "because he's sorry", like I'm seeing on Reddit and Twitter, then Trump is safe.

[Dubey 1,035]

I'd personally be shocked if a group of politicians did the right thing, so I'm gonna say nothing happens to Franken, or Moore, or anyone else.

[GOCUBSGO 77]

Trump defending Moore. Shocker.

 

And before anyone accuses me of liberal bias, I should go on record saying I think all of them need to go. Franken, Moore, all of them. They are all disgusting.

 

Of course that list would also include Trump...

[brvheart 1,753]

I do think you have a liberal bias, but we happen to agree on this particular issue.

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Justin Wolfers‏

@JustinWolfers

The University of Chicago surveyed 42 leading economists and found exactly one who believes the Republican claim that their tax bill will grow the economy. http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2 …

 

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Replying to @JustinWolfers

And 100% of this bi-partisan panel of economists believe that the Republican tax bill will cause the national debt to balloon over the next decade.

 

Point is, it is literally impossible to find a credible economist who buys Mnuchin’s claim that his tax bill will go anywhere near paying for itself.

 

[FCP Bob 1,320]

This article from Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times is pretty spot on.

 

Taking harassment seriously also requires making serious distinctions

[scuudagouch 15]

the national debt wont grow if spending is cut, spending can't be cut until there is a budget...I don't think this tax bill does enough, I wish there were more personal tax cuts as well the proposed reduced business cuts.

 

bottom line is spending needs to go down. I would cut about 20% across the board, leave security and defense alone, maybe a 5% to them...probably would have the goal cut everything 25% but might no be possible. it is time the ass clowns from both parties learn you can do the same with less. Business has proved it over the last 30 years our government should as well.

[brvheart 1,753]

Justin Wolfers‏

@JustinWolfers

The University of Chicago surveyed 42 leading economists and found exactly one who believes the Republican claim that their tax bill will grow the economy. http://www.igmchicag...ys/tax-reform-2 …

Replying to @JustinWolfers

And 100% of this bi-partisan panel of economists believe that the Republican tax bill will cause the national debt to balloon over the next decade.

 

Point is, it is literally impossible to find a credible economist who buys Mnuchin’s claim that his tax bill will go anywhere near paying for itself.

 

Nothing in either of these Tweets would be able to convince an average toddler about anything. There are literally hundreds of thousands of economists in the world and they talked to 42? Did any of those economists ever explain sample size to the young liberals creating this narrative?

 

Who paid for this polling of 42, of the ever-cliche, "leading" economists? Oh. The University of Chicago? They probably don't have an agenda.

 

Also, I've already been told by Randy Reed and others that the national debt isn't important. I was told that when Barack Obama took the National Debt from 9 Trillion to 20 trillion. But that's probably not considered "ballooning". Why would it? He only raised it 110%.

 

 

All that to say, that the GOP tax cuts might not grow the economy. The same people blasting it now blasted it when W did it. However, when W handed the reins to Obama, no one was worried about the skyrocketing debt. Weird.

[FCP Bob 1,320]

Nothing in either of these Tweets would be able to convince an average toddler about anything. There are literally hundreds of thousands of economists in the world and they talked to 42? Did any of those economists ever explain sample size to the young liberals creating this narrative?

 

Who paid for this polling of 42, of the ever-cliche, "leading" economists? Oh. The University of Chicago? They probably don't have an agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

The U of Chicago polls a cross section of the leading American economists on a regular basis on many different topics. Those economists cover the political spectrum from Democrats to Republicans. They are a who's who of the leading American economists. If you actually knew anything about the Economics field you would recognize most of the names.

 

Some conservative Republican economists I follow on Twitter were mocking the lone outlier from the survey. If you aren't a hack there is no debate.

[scuudagouch 15]

Resorting to name calling... interesting change there.

[FCP Bob 1,320]

The U of Chicago polls a cross section of the leading American economists on a regular basis on many different topics. Those economists cover the political spectrum from Democrats to Republicans. They are a who's who of the leading American economists. If you actually knew anything about the Economics field you would recognize most of the names.

 

Some conservative Republican economists I follow on Twitter were mocking the lone outlier from the survey. If you aren't a hack there is no debate.

 

 

 

About the IGM Economic Experts Panel

This panel explores the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. To assess such beliefs we assembled this panel of expert economists. Statistics teaches that a sample of (say) 40 opinions will be adequate to reflect a broader population if the sample is representative of that population.

 

To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States. The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession. This selection process has the advantage of not only providing a set of panelists whose names will be familiar to other economists and the media, but also delivers a group with impeccable qualifications to speak on public policy matters.

 

Finally, it is important to explain one aspect of our voting process. In some instances a panelist may neither agree nor disagree with a statement, and there can be two very different reasons for this. One case occurs when an economist is an expert on a topic and yet sees the evidence on the exact claim at hand as ambiguous. In such cases our panelists vote "uncertain". A second case relates to statements on topics so far removed from the economist's expertise that he or she feels unqualified to vote. In this case, our panelists vote "no opinion".

 

The Economic Experts Panel questions are emailed individually to the members of the panel, and each responds electronically at his or her convenience. Panelists may consult whatever resources they like before answering.

 

Members of the public are free to suggest questions (see link below), and the panelists suggest many themselves. Members of the IGM faculty are responsible for deciding the final version of each week’s question. We usually send a draft of the question to the panel in advance, and invite them to point out problems with the wording if they see any. In response, we typically receive a handful of suggested clarifications from individual experts. This process helps us to spot inconsistencies, and to reduce vagueness or problems of interpretation.

 

The panel data are copyrighted by the Initiative on Global Markets and are being analyzed for an article to appear in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

[SilentSnow 1]

“There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children. I’ve yet to see a valid explanation and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts.”

Ivanka Trump.

 

Well that's awkward. Good thing thanksgiving is already over.

[Dubey 1,035]

So much winning