Hillary Sucks.

[E30 Wagen]

I'm voting for Tyrion Lannister.

[Nesset]

It's horrifying she's a candidate.

I'm voting Wilhelm Hofmeister.

[M-technik-3]

more dirt.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

[BraveUlysses]

getting back on point
Hillary is clearly not fit to be President due to her public record. She is qualified, but not fit.
Trump may be unqualified, but he is fit.
So here we are.
The only choice and chance for changing all that's wrong in DC is Trump.
Clinton is more of the same, more of what got us here. If you like politics in America, if you like how our country has been run for decades, vote for Hillary
Johnson and Stein have no chance and are votes for Hillary. I'm not sure you can be "principled" when your vote is for the status quo.
Trump is not perfect by a long shot. Others perhaps more perfect chose not to run or were defeated in primaries.
We will never have a perfect candidate.

Vote Trump

"getting back on point" aka you cower and run away from your bad, indefensible arguments about trump's tax plans

You're a fucking idiot.

[M-technik-3]

^ so you are saying if Bill and Hillary had done this then it's not an issue? He had his taxes prepared by a tax person and supposedly were legal at the time. I don't like the method of madness, but if my account said it was legal I would have done the same damn thing.

[marshallnoise]

^ so you are saying if Bill and Hillary had done this then it's not an issue? He had his taxes prepared by a tax person and supposedly were legal at the time. I don't like the method of madness, but if my account said it was legal I would have done the same damn thing.

Tax plans, not tax returns.

Resume.

[M-technik-3]

Oh tax plans...nobody is going to stab themselves in the foot, Obama if he was serious about "Change" should have started a plan to alter the tax code about 20 months ago. I might have been vetoed but never know.

[BraveUlysses]

^ so you are saying if Bill and Hillary had done this then it's not an issue? He had his taxes prepared by a tax person and supposedly were legal at the time. I don't like the method of madness, but if my account said it was legal I would have done the same damn thing.

I'm not talking about trump's tax returns, look up to post #666 (lol)

[M-technik-3]

Yeah got yeah, you're talking about his crazy ideas for tax reform...None of our crazed loonies in DC really want to shoot themselves in the foot with a tax reform.

[gwb72tii]

pls tell me what is crazy about trump's tax plans o learned one

or

do you mean reducing corporate tax rates?

lower personal tax rates with limited deductions?

let me 'splain
i'm an old mechanical engineer so logic/data means a lot to me. results in the real world should drive policy. it's the reason i'm not a fan of our fed reserve. no data to back up their policies, in fact the exact opposite.
prolly before your time, but go back through history and see what happens when tax rates are reduced. economic expansion, job creation, increased tax revenues to the fed government. ala JFK and Reagan
corporate tax rates in the USA are noncompetitive with the rest of the world (too high) and one reason why businesses merge with foreign competitors and then relocate corporate offices outside the US.
All taxes are paid by you and me. Further, economic data shows higher corporate tax rates lead to lower wages.
I applaud millennials focus on the unethical/immoral behavior of corporate executive pay. But tax rates aren't going to change that.
i employ 4 people, and lower tax rates for my business might let me hire another person to expand.

[BraveUlysses]

I'll address this by pointing out this terribly false post you made pages ago and refused to walk back:

i used to agree with your point but then listened and read his platform.
his tax proposals in particular are conservative, other than believing people like himself ought to pay more in taxes (the evil rich).

100% full of shit. no wonder you like trump, you refuse to own up to your own bullshit just like him.

don't pretend you're data driven if you can't or won't do basic internet search to look up any of the many analyses on each candidate's tax plans.

I already pointed this out once but you refused to even read them apparently

This was before trump had to create a second tax plan, because the first one was projected to cost 10T over 10 years.

So here's the scoop on the new one: http://taxfoundation.org/article/det...september-2016

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision.

After accounting for the larger economy and the broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenues by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion after accounting for the larger economy, depending on the nature of a key policy provision.

The plan reduces revenue by substantially less than the plan proposed by Trump last year, on both a static and dynamic basis.

On a static basis, the plan would lead to at least 0.8 percent higher after-tax income for all taxpayer quintiles. The plan would lead to at least 10.2 percent higher incomes for the top 1 percent of taxpayers or as much as 16.0 percent higher, depending on the nature of a key business policy provision.

Experts Weigh Donald Trump’s Tax Plan, and Find It Wanting

More trickle up bullshit.


I'm not opposed to reduction of the corporate tax rate and removal of a huge portion of tax benefits carved out for certain industries and repatriation of money kept offshore.

That's not the bulk of trump's plan--it's his enormous cuts for income taxes that aren't paid for by the rest of his tax plan. His plan is fiscally insolvent, by a huge margin. I'm not a fan of Hillary's tax increases but they at least cover her proposed spending increases.

[Schnitzer318is]

I'll address this by pointing out this terribly false post you made pages ago and refused to walk back:



100% full of shit. no wonder you like trump, you refuse to own up to your own bullshit just like him.

don't pretend you're data driven if you can't or won't do basic internet search to look up any of the many analyses on each candidate's tax plans.

I already pointed this out once but you refused to even read them apparently

This was before trump had to create a second tax plan, because the first one was projected to cost 10T over 10 years.

So here's the scoop on the new one: http://taxfoundation.org/article/det...september-2016



Experts Weigh Donald Trump’s Tax Plan, and Find It Wanting

More trickle up bullshit.


I'm not opposed to reduction of the corporate tax rate and removal of a huge portion of tax benefits carved out for certain industries and repatriation of money kept offshore.

That's not the bulk of trump's plan--it's his enormous cuts for income taxes that aren't paid for by the rest of his tax plan. His plan is fiscally insolvent, by a huge margin. I'm not a fan of Hillary's tax increases but they at least cover her proposed spending increases.

Thanks, thought I had stepped into an alternate reality there for a sec and was totally unaware of some new(er) tax plan he proposed.

[gwb72tii]

yes yes yes i've heard it all before, from the likes of you, the left and economic "experts"
Reaganomics was predicted to leave a huge hole in the budget when it was passed, and was i believe the larges tax cut ever although i might be wrong on that.
Go look at what happened. There was NO reduction in tax receipts, There were record capital gain taxes collected (predicted to decrease) and record personal taxes collected (predicted to decrease)
There was NO reduction.
There was however a huge increase in economic activity and job creation.
and before you mention the deficit
If the democratic dominated congress would have held back on spending that they promised to do the budget would never have had the hole in it that happened.

You can espouse whatever economic theories and pseudo economic experts you want, but the actual economic data backs me up

[Schnitzer318is]

You can espouse whatever economic theories and pseudo economic experts you want, but the actual economic data backs me up

Don't disagree there regarding the statistics. But you are going off data gleaned in the decade of decadence. The economic growth possible then... is not possible now. You need growth for a tax-cut policy to work. Reagan was getting 3.64% GDP growth per quarter on average during his presidency and Obama is getting 1.78%. The next POTUS could have a worse rate of growth to deal with (or stagnant).

In a perfect world where our government had not stuck us in a 20 trillion dollar hole... I'd be the first one saying we need low taxes and can afford social spending. But as it sits now, we need moderately higher taxes... and lower social spending. Oh, and to cut subsidies, defense spending, aid to other nations, etc, etc. But that's just a pipe dream because the corporations and special interests like the system we have now. It works for them.

Edit: Just going back and looking at the debt during the 80's out of curiosity. Reagan put us over 1 trillion, and ended at 2.6 trillion. Doesn't sound that great either. It DOES sound awesome when you compare it to the numbers added by GWB and Obama... but still I'd hardly call adding 186% to the national debt fiscally conservative, or successful.

[mrsleeve]

George you have to remember a lot of these guys were barely an itch in there fathers sack at best, when Regan 1st sat in the Oval. Me I was around when Carter was in office, but way to young to even remember that.

With my generations view on history, "it happened in the past it dose not affect me now," and times have changed and there for we need to do something modern, since everyone told me growing up that " I am special and my feelings matter" we should only do things that I deem to be right....