2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
sun_tzu said:
even if a flat rate of income tax is introduced then it wont touch the dividends as that is not income taxable anyway - you would need to change the law on taxation of dividends to do that... of course that would also involve all the pension funds etc invested in big companies having their income taxed as well but baby and bathwater and all that
Click to expand...
But they could change a law stopping corporations having tax deductions when they pay CEO's based in performing payment.

444ed1e8-e8d3-4bfb-8487-07f06adc8511-553x720.png


Using this graphic and using the numbers given by IRS the CEO's paid 41 m in taxes (18%) and the corp's had a tax deduction of 64 m, lets use a 15% flat rate and the CEO's would pay a bit less than 40 m but the IRS would keep the 64 m from the corp's and on this example they would tax more than 100m.
 
barros said:
explain?
Click to expand...

You claim to be a republican and you are criticizing Trump on his immigration plan. I live in Texas and I'm the only independent in a family that have been republican donors since forever and not one republican I know of would even remotely consider legitimizing illegals in the country. That's just a non-starter.

Fiorina ran HP to the ground, including about 35k job cuts and the bleeding hasn't stopped today 10 years after she was forced out. I mean she was taken to town by Steve Jobs on a deal that had her selling iPods with a HP sticker while providing iTunes their entry into the windows market for FREE. I mean read this article to even understand what kind of a joke her tenure was:

http://fortune.com/2015/10/01/carly-fiorina-apple-steve-jobs-ipod/

Bush has been a persistent failure from day 1 and his campaign itself is in a financial crisis. If he can't manage the richest campaign in terms of donations for 18 months, its hopeless to imagine him running the country.

Cruz is the next Rick Perry but he is thriving amongst this confederacy of dunces while Carson has spent his campaign being the surgeon who denounced science, failed basic background fact checks while not even managing a straight answer to a straight question regarding economic policy in the debate.

That leaves us with the only three legitimate candidates, Kasich, who would be an excellent nomination, Rubio and Rand. Rand spent the entire campaign until yesterday shelving his libertarian beliefs while towing the party line when the primary itself was set up for people to embrace his uniqueness against an entirely ordinary field.

The big hope now is that its a Rubio/Kasich ticket, otherwise its going to be a hopeless election.
 
Last edited:
Red Dreams said:
Kasich is only less boring than Bush. Yes. Rubio will be VP nominee.
Click to expand...

Not going to lie, I would vote for Kasich if I'm American and he runs as an independent, in a match up against Clinton. Appears sound and at least have a heart, which is more than can be said of the other GOP candidates
 
Bush / Kasich would make a decent ticket that would probably win both OH and FL. Come to think of it so would Rubio - Kasich. Those are the only two who are moderate enough to choose him.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Not going to lie, I would vote for Kasich if I'm American and he runs as an independent, in a match up against Clinton. Appears sound and at least have a heart, which is more than can be said of the other GOP candidates
Click to expand...

No Republican is sound. They all believe in the Trickle Down Economy bollocks...and they are are owned by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Clinton is also corrupt. But she is a much lesser evil.

The nation is moving left. People like Sanders is the sign. But the Dems need to be patient. The Supreme Court is the most important factor. The ultimate goal must remain Absolute power. Then we can implement permanent change.
 
Red Dreams said:
No Republican is sound. They all believe in the Trickle Down Economy bollocks...and they are are owned by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Clinton is also corrupt. But she is a much lesser evil.

The nation is moving left. People like Sanders is the sign. But the Dems need to be patient. The Supreme Court is the most important factor. The ultimate goal must remain Absolute power. Then we can implement permanent change.
Click to expand...

sounds sinister...lol
 
Red Dreams said:
No Republican is sound. They all believe in the Trickle Down Economy bollocks...and they are are owned by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Clinton is also corrupt. But she is a much lesser evil.

The nation is moving left. People like Sanders is the sign. But the Dems need to be patient. The Supreme Court is the most important factor. The ultimate goal must remain Absolute power. Then we can implement permanent change.
Click to expand...

Did say if he runs as independent though.

Such a shame Warren will never run. Bernie is the best candidate but his age, his socialist stigma and his demeanor together means he's got no chance.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Did say if he runs as independent though.

Such a shame Warren will never run. Bernie is the best candidate but his age, his socialist stigma and his demeanor together means he's got no chance.
Click to expand...

Warren is more left than Bernie. She might win an election 10 years from now but right now the country is a bit conservative to elect someone like her.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Did say if he runs as independent though.

Such a shame Warren will never run. Bernie is the best candidate but his age, his socialist stigma and his demeanor together means he's got no chance.
Click to expand...

He is your establishment GOP candidate. If his balls were not owned by the Super Rich, yeah he would have been Ok. Actually McCain in 2000 if he had won the nomination would have saved the Republican Party. He would have made a very sound president. And we may never have heard of Obama.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Warren is more left than Bernie. She might win an election 10 years from now but right now the country is a bit conservative to elect someone like her.
Click to expand...

She is 2 years younger than Hillary. Warren and Sanders will have their younger counter parts in 8 years time and they will bring the country farther left. I have no doubt.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Warren is more left than Bernie. She might win an election 10 years from now but right now the country is a bit conservative to elect someone like her.
Click to expand...

It's all about the appeal though. In a general election she would face a very steep odd without big money behind her but her middle class roots and life story + anti Wall Street rhetoric can energize a lot of people.

Bernie appears too much like a grumpy Doc Brown. For voters who don't like or get talks about substantive issues, it's hard for him to connect. His supporters still remain mostly white, young and highly educated liberals.
 
Red Dreams said:
He is your establishment GOP candidate. If his balls were not owned by the Super Rich, yeah he would have been Ok. Actually McCain in 2000 if he had won the nomination would have saved the Republican Party. He would have made a very sound president. And we may never have heard of Obama.
Click to expand...

John "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain? Not really sound if you ask me.

Obama was always going to be president. As soon as he was elected Senator, there were murmurs that he should run for president. Pretty similar to Rubio actually, one backed by well to do blacks, the other el exilio historico
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
John "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain? Not really sound if you ask me.

Obama was always going to be president. As soon as he was elected Senator, there were murmurs that he should run for president. Pretty similar to Rubio actually, one backed by well to do blacks, the other el exilio historico
Click to expand...

Not in 2008. In 2000 he was pretty sound. The country was still pretty evenly divided. He would never have picked Chenny for one.
 
I only read a few news stories on this every now and then and don't consider myself at all educated on the subject, so pardon my ignorance. But how can Donald Trump says things along the lines of "I'd build a wall between Mexico and the US and deport all of the illegals" and be the most popular candidate amongst the general public? I find it genuinely baffling.

If a politician over here came out with any remark like that they'd be sectioned alongside the likes of Galloway.
 
Red Dreams said:
not sure at all about that. Gore really was an awful candidate as was Kerry in 2004. I would have had no serious issues voting for McCain. I agree Gore would have made a good president.
Click to expand...

Gore made the mistake of distancing himself from good ol' Billy. He won half a million votes more nationally and lost the presidency by voter suppression from the brother of the opposing candidate. I wouldn't call that awful, really. Historically it's always tough to run a successful campaign in the footsteps of a 2 term prez so he was disadvantaged from the start.
 
Gore's election would have dramatically changed the world as we know it today - Iraq and climate change being the 2 biggest differences.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
You claim to be a republican and you are criticizing Trump on his immigration plan. I live in Texas and I'm the only independent in a family that have been republican donors since forever and not one republican I know of would even remotely consider legitimizing illegals in the country. That's just a non-starter.

Fiorina ran HP to the ground, including about 35k job cuts and the bleeding hasn't stopped today 10 years after she was forced out. I mean she was taken to town by Steve Jobs on a deal that had her selling iPods with a HP sticker while providing iTunes their entry into the windows market for FREE. I mean read this article to even understand what kind of a joke her tenure was:

http://fortune.com/2015/10/01/carly-fiorina-apple-steve-jobs-ipod/

Bush has been a persistent failure from day 1 and his campaign itself is in a financial crisis. If he can't manage the richest campaign in terms of donations for 18 months, its hopeless to imagine him running the country.

Cruz is the next Rick Perry but he is thriving amongst this confederacy of dunces while Carson has spent his campaign being the surgeon who denounced science, failed basic background fact checks while not even managing a straight answer to a straight question regarding economic policy in the debate.

That leaves us with the only three legitimate candidates, Kasich, who would be an excellent nomination, Rubio and Rand. Rand spent the entire campaign until yesterday shelving his libertarian beliefs while towing the party line when the primary itself was set up for people to embrace his uniqueness against an entirely ordinary field.

The big hope now is that its a Rubio/Kasich ticket, otherwise its going to be a hopeless election.
Click to expand...
How to you expect to expel 11 million people? Also I said she could be a good president but I will not vote for her, so far I'm more inclined for Rubio and I though Kasich was very poor and annoying. Anyway what I wrote was about this last debate.
 
Red Dreams said:
No Republican is sound. They all believe in the Trickle Down Economy bollocks...and they are are owned by the Koch brothers and their ilk.

Clinton is also corrupt. But she is a much lesser evil.

The nation is moving left. People like Sanders is the sign. But the Dems need to be patient. The Supreme Court is the most important factor. The ultimate goal must remain Absolute power. Then we can implement permanent change.
Click to expand...

You work for Putin?
 
senorgregster said:
That's an interesting plot. Whats missing though? Seems to be a disconnect from the "CEO pays less than the secretary".
Click to expand...
I guess you skipped some posts.
"The IRS's tables show that the top 400 taxpayers had an average tax rate of 18%. But more than half, or 221, had average effective tax rates between 10% and 20%, while 37 had an average rate of less than 10%.

In 2010, the top rate on wages was 35%, while the top rate on long-term capital gains and many dividends was 15%. Those rates, and their deductions, could have helped to lower the average rate paid by the 400, says Mr. Williams."
 
Neutral said:
facts are just things liberals make up - they don't count...GO AWAY
Click to expand...

For people who don't want to read the whole thing..
At another point last night, Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal, reminded Carly Fiorina, “In seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you’ll probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?”
If anything, Baker’s numbers were tilted in the GOP’s favor, since Obama’s totals are dragged down by including the early months of his presidency, when the economy was in free fall. Nevertheless, the point is accurate – since World War II, more jobs are created under Democratic presidents than Republicans – prompting Fiorina to reply, “Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats.”
Click to expand...
 
If you sat down and did a fact check on what some of these republicans have been saying on the campaign trail - they'd make Pinocchio jealous with the size of their noses....

I'm not surprised by it. It's all about the narrative.

What republican is going to admit the economy is a hell of a lot better off than it was when Obama took office? Who is going to admit the bailout of Detroit was the right thing to do?
 
Neutral said:
If you sat down and did a fact check on what some of these republicans have been saying on the campaign trail - they'd make Pinocchio jealous with the size of their noses....

I'm not surprised by it. It's all about the narrative.

What republican is going to admit the economy is a hell of a lot better off than it was when Obama took office? Who is going to admit the bailout of Detroit was the right thing to do?
Click to expand...

It's the blatancy of it though in the examples in that article (if true). It would make you scoff out loud. Fingers-in-ears-la-la-la kind of stuff.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Gore made the mistake of distancing himself from good ol' Billy. He won half a million votes more nationally and lost the presidency by voter suppression from the brother of the opposing candidate. I wouldn't call that awful, really. Historically it's always tough to run a successful campaign in the footsteps of a 2 term prez so he was disadvantaged from the start.
Click to expand...

the specialty of the GOP. But for the brainless people who vote for them it does not matter because it is minorities votes.
 
senorgregster said:
That's an interesting plot. Whats missing though? Seems to be a disconnect from the "CEO pays less than the secretary".
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that because a minority of ceo's may employ aggressive tax avoidance it is wrong to then apply that across the board because there are notable examples like Buffet who make a point of paying their fair share
Both extreme examples are outliers in the bigger picture and tax policy should be framed around the majority otherwise you end up with crazy policies.
 
barros said:
I guess you skipped some posts.
"The IRS's tables show that the top 400 taxpayers had an average tax rate of 18%. But more than half, or 221, had average effective tax rates between 10% and 20%, while 37 had an average rate of less than 10%.

In 2010, the top rate on wages was 35%, while the top rate on long-term capital gains and many dividends was 15%. Those rates, and their deductions, could have helped to lower the average rate paid by the 400, says Mr. Williams."
Click to expand...
I did miss that. Thanks.
 
JustAFan said:
I have my doubts about Gore, smart man for sure until he decided to act the twat in debates making Bush look better. The election never would have been close had Gore behaved like a grown man instead of a child.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Gore can be very pompous. I remember watching a few of his interviews on talk shows and it's evident he doesn't connect with the audience.

Credits must be given to W though. He's an ignorant ideologue but he does know how to put up a likeable, 'integrity' facade.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Credits must be given to W though. He's an ignorant ideologue but he does know how to put up a likeable, 'integrity' facade.
Click to expand...

I think you're doing a great disservice to GWB. I don't think his integrity thing was a facade. I truly believe he was a well meaning and compassionate patriot.

Sadly, he surrounded himself with pure evil - AQ levels of evil.

- Dick Cheney
- Donald Rumsfeld
- Paul Wolfowitz

This is what a member of their organization (PNAC) had to say -

"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power.... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".
Click to expand...

or his very nuanced and even handed analysis of the Iranians

'They have terrorism in their DNA'
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.