The media, and Hilary, are attacking Trump for not paying more taxes than he legally owes. Who the hell does he think he is, flagrantly obeying our laws like this! The nerve of the guy!

For all the liberal whining on this issue, I have never seen evidence that any of them pay more than they legally owe. Most Americans don't want a POTUS dumb enough to donate money to the US government.

If your accountant told you tomorrow, "Congratulations! I figured out a way for you to avoid paying any income tax!" you would do exactly what I would do, and everyone else would do: kiss your accountant flush on the lips and not pay taxes.

How about an audit of the books for the Clinton Foundation?

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me :devil2:

How about an audit of the books for the Clinton Foundation?

You could start here.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me :devil2:

"What if it wasn't legal?"

Then there's a mechanism to deal with that. It's called the IRS, and federal prison. As of today, he hasn't been charged with anything, correct?

So now it's OK to penalize people (at least Republicans) when there's a chance, according to somebody, they broke the law?


"uses the scam "

The 'scam' as you refer to it, is US tax code. Obama has had 8 years to propose changes to it. If there are gross inadequacies, I wonder why he didn't fix them, especially when his party controlled both houses of Congress?

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me :devil2:

The way the law works back then was if he took out a $999 million loan and put 1 million down himself . If the project folded and the bank lost 999 million he was also allowed to claim that $999 million loss .
He could even spread that loss over a number of years and avoid paying federal tax.
Sounds crazy but it's more proof that the system is rigged and needs major change .
The banks got bailed out....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You could start here.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

Where are the illegalities in the Clinton foundation? What laws have they broken? There has to be something!

We know that Trump used his unregistered foundation to pay his debts and fund his lifestyle yet somehow I've missed the thread here about it.

There can't be a double standard, can there?

You could start here.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports


Would these be from before our after the refiling due to, err, eroneous information?

Would these be from before our after the refiling due to, err, eroneous information?
You don't think most large organizations are constantly refiling because of small errors and oversights?

Perhaps you should post the meme showing 85% of CF money doesn't go to charity :1poke:

Where are the illegalities in the Clinton foundation? What laws have they broken? There has to be something!

We know that Trump used his unregistered foundation to pay his debts and fund his lifestyle yet somehow I've missed the thread here about it.

There can't be a double standard, can there?

"are the illegalities in the Clinton foundation? "

None that I'm aware of.

But if she makes the bullsh*t claim that my side hates women and gays, it's fair to point out that her foundation does an AWFUL lot of business with powerful folks in the Mideast, places that last time I checked, aren't exactly friendly to women or gays. And some of that money is used to lavish the Clintons, and their friends, with fine travel and accommodations, and in some cases, her cronies get nice salaries from that foundation.

Chris Christie There’s no one who’s shown more genius in their way to maneuver around the tax code,” and Rudy Giuliani

"The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man's a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he's serving,

Mitt Romney had privately derided 47 percent of Americans as shiftless individuals who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own lives. Trump hit Fox News to advise Romney not to apologize for the remark. And he again complained that half of Americans do not pay taxes but expect handouts from the government:

He should never apologize. Actually bring on this discussion…It's a discussion that maybe should be had. You do have a large percentage of people not paying taxes. You do have a large percentage of people that feel they're entitled.

In these comments, Trump was slamming people who didn't pay income taxes for feeling entitled and for essentially screwing those Americans who do.

But he's a genius Like he does his own taxes Thats some crazy optics

we know why 40% of americans have effective tax rate of ZERO its they dont make enough money ... not because they lost 900 million and still have a private Jet ...

Hilary's 2015 1040 also shows that she carried forward a 700k long term loss, to reduce her tax liablility for 2015.

How come it's OK for her to do that, but it's unethical for him to do it?

It was a loss carried foward from 2008 and they could only deduct $3000 for 2015. That seems strange but it would appear to me they must have used the loss over the previous 8 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The article I read said 700k. In any event, it begs the question...how come it's OK for her to do it (Spence would say it was brilliant when she did it), but not OK when Trump does it?

There are a million legitimate reasons to attack this guy. With a well that deep, she (and her minions in the media) still needs to make garbage up?

Chris Christie There’s no one who’s shown more genius in their way to maneuver around the tax code,” and Rudy Giuliani

"The reality is, this is part of our tax code. The man's a genius. He knows how to operate the tax code to the benefit of the people he's serving,

Mitt Romney had privately derided 47 percent of Americans as shiftless individuals who could not be bothered to take responsibility for their own lives. Trump hit Fox News to advise Romney not to apologize for the remark. And he again complained that half of Americans do not pay taxes but expect handouts from the government:

He should never apologize. Actually bring on this discussion…It's a discussion that maybe should be had. You do have a large percentage of people not paying taxes. You do have a large percentage of people that feel they're entitled.

In these comments, Trump was slamming people who didn't pay income taxes for feeling entitled and for essentially screwing those Americans who do.

But he's a genius Like he does his own taxes Thats some crazy optics

we know why 40% of americans have effective tax rate of ZERO its they dont make enough money ... not because they lost 900 million and still have a private Jet ...

So in your opinion, when a business uses legal means to eliminate the taxes it owes, that's the same (or worse?) than when someone capable of working, chooses to mooch off welfare?

If Trump pays no federal income tax, the business he runs still produces enormous tax revenue...it pays social security and Medicare tax, it pays salaries to employees which generate all kinds of tax revenue...the business adds value.

But again, the double standard...when Bill Clinton kicks millions of poor people off welfare and tells then to go back to work...that makes him a liberal hero. When Trump says some people are abusing the system, that makes him mean.

Got it.

The way the law works back then was if he took out a $999 million loan and put 1 million down himself . If the project folded and the bank lost 999 million he was also allowed to claim that $999 million loss .
He could even spread that loss over a number of years and avoid paying federal tax.
Sounds crazy but it's more proof that the system is rigged and needs major change .
The banks got bailed out....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The scheme was more complicated than that. They used a gimmick to accelerate depreciation to capture a loss and then sell the assets at a higher value with the tax liability.

At the very least it's really sketchy and doesn't show it all the man understands global finance. He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So much for being out for the little guy.

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

The scheme was more complicated than that. They used a gimmick to accelerate depreciation to capture a loss and then sell the assets at a higher value with the tax liability.

At the very least it's really sketchy and doesn't show it all the man understands global finance. He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So much for being out for the little guy.

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

He did ? Please provide a link . If it's what I think you are going to post , your Reading way too much New York Post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

And I'd note, that he didn't say anything insulting to vets, unless we are talking about different quotes. Here is the latest quote...

"
"We need that so badly. And when you talk about the mental health problems when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over.

And they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it. And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn't see in a movie, nobody could believe it.

We need mental health and medical, and it's one of the things that is least addressed and one of the things — one of the things that I hear most about when I go around and talk to the veterans. So we are going to have a very robust, very, very robust level of performance having to do with mental health."

Where is the insult in there, exactly?

Again, there are a million legit reasons to attack this guy. Can't liberals go 30 seconds without making something up?

The scheme was more complicated . . . He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So, in this thread he is calculating not merely an unfiltered impulsive tool. That keeps changing--from thread to thread--and even within threads. Sounds like yawl can't figure him out. Even so, you are sure of your opinions.

So in your opinion, when a business uses legal means to eliminate the taxes it owes, that's the same (or worse?) than when someone capable of working, chooses to mooch off welfare?

If Trump pays no federal income tax, the business he runs still produces enormous tax revenue...it pays social security and Medicare tax, it pays salaries to employees which generate all kinds of tax revenue...the business adds value.

But again, the double standard...when Bill Clinton kicks millions of poor people off welfare and tells then to go back to work...that makes him a liberal hero. When Trump says some people are abusing the system, that makes him mean.



Got it.

stay on topic its about trump not about Bill Clinton Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... I would guess it would show more about him trying to get over on the government then trying to get by as a business .. not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives
can twist this into a positive?

if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice ?

if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice ?

pretty much sums it up.....

And I'd note, that he didn't say anything insulting to vets, unless we are talking about different quotes. Here is the latest quote...

"
"We need that so badly. And when you talk about the mental health problems when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over.

And they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it. And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn't see in a movie, nobody could believe it.

We need mental health and medical, and it's one of the things that is least addressed and one of the things — one of the things that I hear most about when I go around and talk to the veterans. So we are going to have a very robust, very, very robust level of performance having to do with mental health."

Where is the insult in there, exactly?

Again, there are a million legit reasons to attack this guy. Can't liberals go 30 seconds without making something up?


they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

that about sums it up

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..

suicide is not just a veteran issue nor just an issue for those who have seen stuff its a national issues

they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

that about sums it up

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..

suicide is not just a veteran issue nor just an issue for those who have seen stuff its a national issues

"His view" is that some vets come back fine, some come back broken, and that we need to make sure we can help the ones who need help, and that we are currently falling short of that obligation.

Yes, that's deeply offensive and insulting.


You posted one part of a sentence. You did it for a reason, to make it look like he was disparaging those who "can't handle it". When you look at the entire comment, it is crystal clear what he meant.

Again, there are a million legitimate reasons to question this guy's character. This isn't one of them.

stay on topic its about trump not about Bill Clinton Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... I would guess it would show more about him trying to get over on the government then trying to get by as a business .. not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives
can twist this into a positive?

if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice ?

It's about whether o not Trump did anything wrong. If what he did was wrong, than what Hilary did must also be wrong, unless you are saying that she gets special set of rules..

"not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives
can twist this into a positive?"

I didn't say it was a positive. Your side is saying it's a negative and it's not. He hasn't even been accused, yet found guilty, of breaking any rules.

Boy if Hillary wins , I sure hope she lives through her entire first term . Yikes is Kane a fruit loop .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=wdmso;1109856]stay on topic its about trump not about Bill Clinton Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... [/QUOTE

WD, Spence, show us the law where a person running for office has to or must show their tax returns....before Mark Cuban was shunned from the republican party he stated that: " if I were running for president I would never show my taxes."

I couldn't believe how much Kaine was interrupting Pence. I think he got excited once he realized that Pence was not going to try to defend Trump's statements and didn't even want to. The best Pence could do was "don't put words in my mouth" even though Trump's statements were easily found. Kaine was acting Trump like with the interruptions.

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..
I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

Most people , if they aren't deliberately looking at everything he says, with a pessimistic , I hate him mentality , understood the compassion in his speech .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

Can you elaborate on what was bizarre? He said some guys can handle it, and some can't (he could have been more elegant, I guess), then went on and on about how we have an obligation to the guys who come back and need help.

He was exactly right. Some guys come back fine, some guys come back damaged. Is THAT an offensive thing to say?

Everything you need to know about this issue, is that the anti-Trump people focus on a few words (some can handle it and some can't), which by itself may sound callous. But when you read the next things he said (about how we all owe a debt to those who come back in need of help), his intent is clear.

How is it "bizarre" to say that some guys come back in need of help, and we owe it to them to provide that help.

Liberals recently did the same thing to Guiliani, who said "Trump would be better than a woman like Hilary with her track record...".

And the liberals quoted Guliani as saying "Trump would be better than a woman". Makes him sound like one of those deplorable sexists.

Again, there are SO MANY valid things to use against Trump. Why do we need to fabricate things.

Trump is a true jerk. But I cannot fathom how anyone could be offended by what he said in this case. It's mind-boggling.

Can you elaborate on what was bizarre? He said some guys can handle it, and some can't (he could have been more elegant, I guess), then went on and on about how we have an obligation to the guys who come back and need help.

He was exactly right. Some guys come back fine, some guys come back damaged.

.


Thats not what he said ..thats what you heard him Say Hell that would of been great if just said it like you did no issue But no he cant even articulate the simplest of messages with any nuance

This seem to a reoccurring trend with Trump he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest of what he really said or his real meaning Trump speaks like a fortune cookie

"you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it.”

AKA not strong if you cant handle it...

not saying he said that with malice intent . But come on

Thats not what he said ..thats what you heard him Say Hell that would of been great if just said it like you did no issue But no he cant even articulate the simplest of messages with any nuance

This seem to a reoccurring trend with Trump he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest of what he really said or his real meaning Trump speaks like a fortune cookie

"you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it.”

AKA not strong if you cant handle it...

not saying he said that with malice intent . But come on

I didn't hear him say anything. I posted his entire quote. If I got it from an inaccurate source, OK...but if that is the whole, entire quote, there's nothing there that insults me. He has said plenty of things that no one can deny were rotten (I can't believe he survived making fun of Carly Fiorina's face), but this? I don't see it. And I'm not a blind Trump apologist as you have seen.

"AKA not strong if you cant handle it... "

You are the one hearing things that he didn't say.

He said some guys can handle it, some can't. Maybe that sounds callous and dismissive of those he describes as unable to handle it. But he didn't say those who can't are weak. He said we are obligated to help them, and that we are falling short of that obligation today. I don't see ho what can be taken any other way. He didn't say he could handle it and they are weak because they can't.

"he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest"

Again, you seem to be the one who translated what he said, implying that he's saying those who were damaged, are "weak". I didn't see him say that anywhere, and if he did, I would ask you to post it.

If all he said is that "some can't handle it". Well, he could have used more sympathetic language I guess...But I would argue that what he said, is irrefutably true.

Thanks for your other post about the trucks. Sincerely...

some people are just so anxious to become indignant...:exp:

I didn't hear him say anything. I posted his entire quote. If I got it from an inaccurate source, OK...but if that is the whole, entire quote, there's nothing there that insults me. He has said plenty of things that no one can deny were rotten (I can't believe he survived making fun of Carly Fiorina's face), but this? I don't see it. And I'm not a blind Trump apologist as you have seen.

"AKA not strong if you cant handle it... "

You are the one hearing things that he didn't say.

He said some guys can handle it, some can't. Maybe that sounds callous and dismissive of those he describes as unable to handle it. But he didn't say those who can't are weak. He said we are obligated to help them, and that we are falling short of that obligation today. I don't see ho what can be taken any other way. He didn't say he could handle it and they are weak because they can't.

"he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest"

Again, you seem to be the one who translated what he said, implying that he's saying those who were damaged, are "weak". I didn't see him say that anywhere, and if he did, I would ask you to post it.

If all he said is that "some can't handle it". Well, he could have used more sympathetic language I guess...But I would argue that what he said, is irrefutably true.

Thanks for your other post about the trucks. Sincerely...

no worries Jim and no grudges here either :) what fun would it be if everyone saw everything in the same light .. and its hard to make a point in 50 words or less.. At least for me .. however if you can pull me a little right and I can pull you a little left its a win win...

some people are just so anxious to become indignant...:exp:

You nailed it. The media and politicians dig up some truly irrelevant stuff which they try to pass off as dirt . . . tell us how awful it is . . . then, on cue, the peanut gallery squeaks and squawks a chorus of indignant outbursts . . . and others wonder "is this what the election is about? These are the kind of issues which will determine the fate of our country?"

But even more puzzling than the need to be indignant is analysis like:

"Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... I would guess it would show more about him trying to get over on the government then trying to get by as a business .. not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives can twist this into a positive?

if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice?"

Is it being suggested that Trump should tell his tax accountant to disregard losses when doing his taxes. Should trump pay taxes on lost revenue? Does that make sense? Can a business survive with that type of tax policy? Are we supposed to think that "fiscal conservatives" approve of running a business that way? Isn't a primary character of being fiscally conservative not paying more or spending more than is necessary? Wouldn't spending money for nothing in return actually be fiscally profligate?

And the notion that Trump is writing off what he owes is peculiar nonsense. To be able to write it off means he doesn't owe it. If he owed it, he couldn't write it off.

And if he ran the country in the same fiscally conservative way, would that not be exactly what We the People want? Wouldn't we want the government to actually not pay more in expenses than is necessary? That is if the President actually is even supposed to "run the country." Or if it were actually the President's responsibility to control the budget. That is the Congress's duty, not the President's. Although President's, of late, have been ramming through executive orders which cost us money and runs up the debt.

Of course, that is not supposed to happen in our constitutional system. But who cares about that? People expect the new ways over the restrictive constitutional stuff. We expect that the President should "run the country," not us or our elected representatives. Ergo we are frightened to indignation about the chances of electing a candidate who didn't pay taxes which were not necessary to pay. After all, under the new way, fiscal profligacy is exactly what is expected and approved. All the wonderful things that our government does for us costs lots of money. And the government can't write off the debts because it actually owes them. They cannot be considered losses because the government is not a profit producing business. For the government, there is no profit or loss, there is just spending or not spending. And, under the new way, the more spending, the more government, and the more wonderful things it does for us.

We are under the fabricated impression that we actually want a spendthrift government. I guess that's why the curious suggestion that Trump should pay more in taxes than he owes makes sense. The actual suggestion is not that Trump should be fiscally conservative. That might deprive the government of unearned income with which it could spend on getting votes for the really good candidates who want to do stuff for us and enables them to keep the new "system" of raising the debt for the good of all.

And that is too real of an issue to debate on, or dig up "dirt" on. Better to obfuscate, "roll the dice" and make profligacy seem like conservatism. That way we can put the dirt on someone who acts fiscally conservative.

The Marine who asked Trump the question that elicited his response, was on TV tonight. He said he didn't think Trump's language was derisive of those who need help, and he's upset that people are using this to attack Trump.

In case that matters...

no worries Jim and no grudges here either :) what fun would it be if everyone saw everything in the same light .. and its hard to make a point in 50 words or less.. At least for me .. however if you can pull me a little right and I can pull you a little left its a win win...

Hey, I am in favor of gay marriage!!

Of course, I am as guilty as anybody of spreading the ugliness. I wish we could talk more about issues. Forget politics, just look at what has been tried. Let's scrap what doesn't work, and expand upon what does work. We (and that includes me) can't get past the politics to accomplish that.

Have a good night.

Yeah, they took the veterans quote out of context. He was mostly saying a statement of fact; namely, a lot of this stuff is so awful that some people can't stomach it. That's basically correct. I don't believe he meant to impugn any of the veterans.

On the original topic however: how does such a great businessman manage to lose almost a billion dollars in a year during an economic boom? THAT'S hard to believe.

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain.

Until this above quote I believed like others on this site, U were the smartest person in the world....:) most or all the money to build these sky scrapers come from the banks or investers....if U have been to boston the last couple of years and the building that has been going on is all bank loans or investers and the owner of the property having the work done just sits back pays in most cases a monthly construction loan and hopes work is done on schedule. ..if the deal fails banks and investers lose, owner declares a write off on taxes...:)

spence, Apple avoids paying 17 million in taxes every day....U and hillary only pick on on poor mr. trump....:)

Until this above quote I believed like others on this site, U were the smartest person in the world....:) most or all the money to build these sky scrapers come from the banks or investers....if U have been to boston the last couple of years and the building that has been going on is all bank loans or investers and the owner of the property having the work done just sits back pays in most cases a monthly construction loan and hopes work is done on schedule. ..if the deal fails banks and investers lose, owner declares a write off on taxes...:)

spence, Apple avoids paying 17 million in taxes every day....U and hillary only pick on on poor mr. trump....:)
The point is, to gather that much of a loss there was a scheme, he couldn't have done it on personal losses alone.

The point is, to gather that much of a loss there was a scheme, he couldn't have done it on personal losses alone.

I thought I explained this once ?
Spence do you and the Mrs. take all the deductions you can or do you give a little extra to the government ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device