Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
SaintsInDome2006

The Case Against the President: Emoluments, Trump's Finances, Taxes & Foundation

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you GoBirds. I’ve never cared about seeing his taxes. I assume he’s a little bit dishonest, a little bit cut corners. If he had done something really bad he’d be in prison right now. The IRS has fried bigger fish than Trump. 

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia. It’s a crackpot theory IMO. Deutchebanke does have ties to Russian oligarchs, and they probably laundered some of their money by helping Trump buy property. But these sort of shady deals are standard in the upscale real estate industry. Trump is not close to unique in this regard, and the idea that it came with political strings attached is silly IMO. 

Yep I think we are on the same page and your first paragraph nailed it. The bolded is what Maddow is selling these days, wow. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you GoBirds. I’ve never cared about seeing his taxes. I assume he’s a little bit dishonest, a little bit cut corners. If he had done something really bad he’d be in prison right now. The IRS has fried bigger fish than Trump. 

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia. It’s a crackpot theory IMO. Deutchebanke does have ties to Russian oligarchs, and they probably laundered some of their money by helping Trump buy property. But these sort of shady deals are standard in the upscale real estate industry. Trump is not close to unique in this regard, and the idea that it came with political strings attached is silly IMO. 

I like Birds’ & Sammy’s discussion, it had some insight. You’re in the biz, any views on property valuation and taking losses Vs what is reported to lenders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you GoBirds. I’ve never cared about seeing his taxes. I assume he’s a little bit dishonest, a little bit cut corners. If he had done something really bad he’d be in prison right now. The IRS has fried bigger fish than Trump. 

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia. It’s a crackpot theory IMO. Deutchebanke does have ties to Russian oligarchs, and they probably laundered some of their money by helping Trump buy property. But these sort of shady deals are standard in the upscale real estate industry. Trump is not close to unique in this regard, and the idea that it came with political strings attached is silly IMO. 

I wouldn't care much either IF HE WASN'T THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I agree with you GoBirds. I’ve never cared about seeing his taxes. I assume he’s a little bit dishonest, a little bit cut corners. If he had done something really bad he’d be in prison right now. The IRS has fried bigger fish than Trump. 

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia. It’s a crackpot theory IMO. Deutchebanke does have ties to Russian oligarchs, and they probably laundered some of their money by helping Trump buy property. But these sort of shady deals are standard in the upscale real estate industry. Trump is not close to unique in this regard, and the idea that it came with political strings attached is silly IMO. 

WHAT??? Dude you are really trying to tell me this dudes finances are irrelevant? Those ten years would have made him extremely vulnerable to money laundering and in the real estate industry he’d have been in a position to do it. Once he did hit he was owned. I’m struggling to follow your logic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, timschochet said:

FTR, these aren’t good comparisons. 

Steve Wynn

Sheldon Adelson

Krikorian (developer of the MGM Grand at the time). 

These are Trump’s peers; they’re probably the guys you want to look at. 

:shrug: I was thinking of “great businessmen” and “billionaires”.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are Trump supporters who believed that we should run our government like a business and thought what better way than with Trump who is one of the worlds greatest business minds ever......well he was during the 80’s into the 90’s one of the world’s worst business minds losing more money yearly than any other tax person during that span. 

Edited by lazyike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Him being a great businessman was touted as why people should vote for him. Inexperience written off because he would hire great people.

Good stuff 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, lazyike said:

There are Trump supporters who believed that we should run our government like a business and thought what better way than with Trump who is one of the worlds greatest business minds ever......well he was during the 80’s into the 90’s one of the world’s worst business minds losing more money yearly than any other tax person during that span. 

Only the biggest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I like Birds’ & Sammy’s discussion, it had some insight. You’re in the biz, any views on property valuation and taking losses Vs what is reported to lenders?

Yes. It’s corrupt. It’s crooked, if you do it too much you get sent to jail. The taxes won’t tell you that though, otherwise he would already be in jail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

WHAT??? Dude you are really trying to tell me this dudes finances are irrelevant? Those ten years would have made him extremely vulnerable to money laundering and in the real estate industry he’d have been in a position to do it. Once he did hit he was owned. I’m struggling to follow your logic. 

What I’m trying to tell you is that there’s tons of money laundering going on, from Russia, from China, from India, they back a lot of these moguls. It’s usually without the moguls’ knowledge (at least they pretend not to know) and there’s no great political conspiracy that goes with it. 

Years ago when I started in commercial real estate I worked for a guy who had a well known company, I won’t mention the name. In his heyday in the 80s he developed about 200 small shopping centers on corner lots. But then he overextended and was looking at Chapter 13. 

But when I started working for him in the 90s he suddenly had a fusion of money. These Chinese billionaires from Hong Kong were willing to buy any properties they could get. There were strong rumors that some of these guys had made fortunes off of drugs, but my boss never asked. He would fly 4 times a year to Hong Kong with portfolios of shopping centers and come back with cash in the bank. 

This happens all the time. It’s happening today. That’s why this story didn’t impress me. Is Trump a crook? Probably. He certainly plays it fast and loose, but a lot of these developers do. Is Trump a traitor? I doubt it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

What I’m trying to tell you is that there’s tons of money laundering going on, from Russia, from China, from India, they back a lot of these moguls. It’s usually without the moguls’ knowledge (at least they pretend not to know) and there’s no great political conspiracy that goes with it. 

Years ago when I started in commercial real estate I worked for a guy who had a well known company, I won’t mention the name. In his heyday in the 80s he developed about 200 small shopping centers on corner lots. But then he overextended and was looking at Chapter 13. 

But when I started working for him in the 90s he suddenly had a fusion of money. These Chinese billionaires from Hong Kong were willing to buy any properties they could get. There were strong rumors that some of these guys had made fortunes off of drugs, but my boss never asked. He would fly 4 times a year to Hong Kong with portfolios of shopping centers and come back with cash in the bank. 

This happens all the time. It’s happening today. That’s why this story didn’t impress me. Is Trump a crook? Probably. He certainly plays it fast and loose, but a lot of these developers do. Is Trump a traitor? I doubt it. 

I’m pretty amazed at how casually you accept that. We just shrug at bald faced corruption now. 😐

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, timschochet said:

Yes. It’s corrupt. It’s crooked, if you do it too much you get sent to jail. The taxes won’t tell you that though, otherwise he would already be in jail. 

Expand on what’s corrupt? It’s not unusual for the actual value of a property and the book value shown in tax returns to differ....don’t you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you guys talking about tax value vs fair market value?  Those are typically different, and tax value is usually driven by FMV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax basis shown on tax returns is based on your cost basis in the property and decreases over time as you take depreciation. It doesn’t increase with market value, that would save significant taxes paid if it did at the sale of property and allowing higher depreciation expense taken yearly. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Are you guys talking about tax value vs fair market value?  Those are typically different, and tax value is usually driven by FMV.

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, msommer said:

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

That's one way to update the tax value, yes....through sale.  Another is a periodic tax assessment done by the state/local govt.  I've even seen tax values updated based on them being used as collateral.  It's not uncommon at all for the values to be different.  What IS uncommon is for them to be significantly different.  If they are significantly different, the primary reason would be that the person's had the property forever.  Like my mom...her tax value of her house is maybe a quarter of the FMV.  She's lived in the same house over forty years and it's never been used as collateral etc.  If she sells it, what she pays in taxes now will be significantly less than what the new owner pays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

Expand on what’s corrupt? It’s not unusual for the actual value of a property and the book value shown in tax returns to differ....don’t you agree?

I’m sorry I thought he was talking about misrepresenting income, not property valuations. Basically some landlords I know don’t report all income and that is illegal. Most of them simply hide a few checks a year- they just “disappear”. But I know one guy with a center that has a cash flow of over a million a year, and he insists all the tenants pay him cash, and his tax return shows $600,000. I know, I’ve seen it. At some point this dude is going to be audited and he will go to jail; that’s very dangerous.

Property  valuations are a different story. In my state they’re not connected to tax assessments at all due to Prop 13. But there are ways to cheat on this too, more subtly. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, msommer said:

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

Theoretically. But if you have a property worth 100 million and then sell it to a buddy for 10 million... you get the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow the taxes appear to show that Trump was a terrible businessman in the 90s, got overextended, lost a ton of money. He wasn’t the only one, but die to his incessant bragging it’s pretty embarrassing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Theoretically. But if you have a property worth 100 million and then sell it to a buddy for 10 million... you get the point. 

It would seem that your buddy got a great deal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, msommer said:

Eventually, if the property is sold, would they not equal? (Or at least there would be a tax on the difference, right?)

You all are discussing the municipality assessment value used for property taxation, this is separate from your cost basis on a tax return. When a property is sold the municipality would see the price it sold at and should adjust that assessment so for at least that small window of time the assessment value and fair market value should be reasonably close. Neither of these are whats shown on a tax return (besides sales price i sold that year of return), the return has the cost basis of the asset which is based on your investment in the property less depreciation. That value will be used to base the cap gains tax the seller will owe at sales price - cost basis. This is why the "release the tax returnz!" outrage is comical as it isn't going to prove anything, especially on his personal tax returns. 

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge fast-tracks fight over congressional subpoena of Trump financial records
 

Quote

 

Judge Amit Mehta plans next week to weigh the major legal issues raised in President Donald Trump's challenge of a congressional subpoena for his accounting firm's records, according to an order issued Thursday -- putting the case on an even faster track than it previously looked to be.

Congress has subpoenaed Trump and his business' accounting records from the firm Mazars USA, and Trump's personal legal team sued to stop the records from being turned over.

A hearing is now scheduled for May 14.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 7:17 AM, timschochet said:

Anyhow the taxes appear to show that Trump was a terrible businessman in the 90s, got overextended, lost a ton of money. He wasn’t the only one, but die to his incessant bragging it’s pretty embarrassing. 

Yaknow, the Trump defense of this is also an argument about why Congress should have these. If corporate owners of conglomerates - like casinos and real estate for crying out loud - can get away with being $250 million in the red - 25-35 years ago - then how many are doing this and what are they getting away with now? I think the argument is actually there for Congress to look at this from a tax reform standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 9:31 AM, GoBirds said:

This is why the "release the tax returnz!" outrage is comical as it isn't going to prove anything, especially on his personal tax returns. 

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

I appreciate where you're going here but there is exactly zero chance he had any sort of meaningful knowledge of the tax code

That said am i reading that they are after more than tax records?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

I appreciate where you're going here but there is exactly zero chance he had any sort of meaningful knowledge of the tax code

That said am i reading that they are after more than tax records?

Ha, I am willing to plead ignorance there. I meant to include others who were discussing it if it wasn't clear, you, Tim and Sammy too.

I hadn't thought of your second point, the requests to the banks and accountants and all that might be included too, though I somewhat think it may be on a different track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ha, I am willing to plead ignorance there. I meant to include others who were discussing it if it wasn't clear, you, Tim and Sammy too.

I hadn't thought of your second point, the requests to the banks and accountants and all that might be included too, though I somewhat think it may be on a different track.

I'm talking about trump. Not gobirds

:lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I just want you to know I've appreciated reading these points.

Just on this though, Trump actually said during the campaign that his manipulations of the tax code meant that he was better prepared to reform the unfair loopholes better than anyone. If I take your points at face value, and they read reasonably, it seems like an argument why the tax code should be reformed. I can't think of a better set of tax returns to work off of than Trump's. Almost everything you point out suggests perhaps even a better reason why Congress should review them. I can't imagine there are even 5-10 individuals in America who have managed $1 billion in individual reported losses in any decade, so there really isn't a better case to examine.

A bunch of political puppets already requested the returns in manners similar to those in here that have shown they have no handle on what they are asking for whatsoever......all they are doing is trying to score political points. There is absolutely no doubt the IRS has been all over this guys @#@# from every direction for the last 4 decades, the odds of anyone in here or the morons on congress turning up something the IRS hasn't just isn't real life. Good political theater for the Left, very little substance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm talking about trump. Not gobirds

:lol:

Yep, sorry I was trying to be complimentary (to everyone) earlier.

About Trump, he has some idea about taxes. I do believe that. For one thing he lobbied for those very same loopholes in the 90s.

For another real reform could come out of it, and I'm guessing he's aware of that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

There is absolutely no doubt the IRS has been all over this guys @#@# from every direction for the last 4 decades, the odds of anyone in here or the morons on congress turning up something the IRS hasn't just isn't real life.

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

I mean crazy rich people get away with paying slim to no tax all the time (the whole carrried interest loophole and private equity industry are built around that).  Heck it’s not unusual for the crazy rich to show huge losses in a (or in a few) years.

What isn’t usual is for the crazy rich to show continually losses on their taxes and make money. That simply can’t happen especially for someone who was buying and selling properties especially when we know every Wall Street firm got burned by him.  That’s not possible.  

You can show the losses, but eventually you have to gain the gain on the sale.  Trump was doing enough buying and selling that the losses were at least in part real.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This was kind of my point. If corporate magnates are doing this kind of thing - taking tens and hundreds of millions in personal losses while actually, per you about Trump, doing quite well and making money as being very successful - then that's a problem. Ideally Congress would see that and do something about it. I personally don't understand why we want crazy rich people getting away with no taxes if that's the argument. I think that was actually a campaign theme of Trump's, at some point he actually said that he was well positioned to reform the very tax laws that he had taken advantage of.

Trust me, I don’t think anyone would be surprised at Democrats in Congress trying to make life harder on business owners. More of the same, I guess they could try but it doesn’t even sound like you all have a handle on how things work regarding these tax laws or how you would change it to make it better? You realize these same laws you are worried about for large corporations also affect the small corporations and business too? The loss carry forward is legal and is very helpful for those in cyclical businesses like real estate that take big losses to recover. No matter how good you are if you were in real estate in times like 2008 it was a blood bath and you were lucky to hang on. But if Democrats are just looking for something new to complain about and hurt businesses and the economy then spinning this I guess is red meat for their base.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth Meyers called Trump “a one-man Fyre Festival”.

:lmao: 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GoBirds said:

Trust me, I don’t think anyone would be surprised at Democrats in Congress trying to make life harder on business owners. More of the same, I guess they could try but it doesn’t even sound like you all have a handle on how things work regarding these tax laws or how you would change it to make it better? You realize these same laws you are worried about for large corporations also affect the small corporations and business too? The loss carry forward is legal and is very helpful for those in cyclical businesses like real estate that take big losses to recover. No matter how good you are if you were in real estate in times like 2008 it was a blood bath and you were lucky to hang on. But if Democrats are just looking for something new to complain about and hurt businesses and the economy then spinning this I guess is red meat for their base.  

Just to be clear I think the time period was 1985-1994. I'm not sure but I am guessing 1987-88 may have been rough due to the crash. But Sammy has a good point above, it's not 1-2 years, like a 2008, it's every year, an average of -100 mill per year, a total of over -$1 billion.

I also want to be sure we are talking about the same thing. I said corporate magnates, not corporations. I am talking about individuals, not businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just to be clear I think the time period was 1985-1994. I'm not sure but I am guessing 1987-88 may have been rough due to the crash. But Sammy has a good point above, it's not 1-2 years, like a 2008, it's every year, an average of -100 mill per year, a total of over -$1 billion.

I also want to be sure we are talking about the same thing. I said corporate magnates, not corporations. I am talking about individuals, not businesses.

So what changes do you make and how do you target these individuals and not hurt the smaller guys at the same time? Many of these corporations like S Corps pass through to your individual return. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

It's not a leap.  He thinks that China is paying the increased costs due to his tariffs.  I can't expect someone who knows so little about basic economics to understand the most complicated tax code in the world.  Logic simply doesn't allow you to go that path :shrug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

It's not a leap.  He thinks that China is paying the increased costs due to his tariffs.  I can't expect someone who knows so little about basic economics to understand the most complicated tax code in the world.  Logic simply doesn't allow you to go that path :shrug: 

I don't believe he thinks this at all. I believe he keeps saying it so his base thinks China is paying the tarrifs. There's no way at this point no one has corrected him on it.

Trump is Dear Leader, if he says it, it must be true.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I don't believe he thinks this at all. I believe he keeps saying it so his base thinks China is paying the tarrifs. There's no way at this point no one has corrected him on it.

Trump is Dear Leader, if he says it, it must be true.

Perhaps. I just don't think he's that smart. :shrug:

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GoBirds said:

So what changes do you make and how do you target these individuals and not hurt the smaller guys at the same time? Many of these corporations like S Corps pass through to your individual return. 

I think I personally would like a Congressional explanation of how this happens and a decision if it is good policy.

And while I think your point about small business RE vs megacorporate real estate sharing the same goals or using the same tools is a good one, I have a hard time seeing the 1-1 on how a billionaire casino owner can personally show $100 million per year losses affects my or my family's ability to invest in real estate. And I do generally support business incentives.

I just want to break the partisan logjam with you for a moment as this is Trump from the campaign.

Quote

 

CLINTON: But, of course, there's no way we can know whether any of that is true, because he hasn't released his tax returns. He is the first candidate ever to run for president in the last 40-plus years who has not released his tax returns, so everything he says about charity or anything else, we can't prove it. You can look at our tax returns. We've got them all out there.

But what is really troubling is that we learned in the last debate he has not paid a penny in federal income tax. And we were talking about immigrants a few minutes ago, Chris. You know, half of all immigrants -- undocumented immigrants in our country -- actually pay federal income tax. So we have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire. I find that just astonishing.

...TRUMP: So let me just tell you very quickly, we're entitled because of the laws that people like her passed to take massive amounts of depreciation on other charges, and we do it. And all of her donors -- just about all of them -- I know Buffett took hundreds of millions of dollars, Soros, George Soros, took hundreds of millions of dollars...

...Let me just explain. ... Most of her donors have done the same thing as I do. ... You know what she should have done? ... And you know, Hillary, what you should have done, you should have changed the law when you were a United States senator... because your donors and your special interests are doing the same thing as I do, except even more so. ... You should have changed the law. But you won't change the law, because you take in so much money. ...

- That's not exactly the quote I have been thinking of. The quote I'm thinking of was Trump at a campaign rally telling his followers that yes it's true that he takes big deductions (not sure anyone knew how big then but anyway...) because of that he was best positioned to understand the loopholes and he would be working for the American people not himself in the White House.

- About the above , Trump may have been right. Maybe Dems do not want to reform the actual loopholes, they receive benefits from such donors as well, I'm sure that is true. But I as an American would like to know how it is that apparently a man can have as much as $250 million tax losses (in 1990 dollars, who knows what this is now...) and yet apparently per you still profit. Or is he really not profiting at all? I really don't care whose tax ox gets gored there.

But I don't think it helps that Buffet showed that Trump was lying when he made that claim, at least to him. So if Trump was lying about Buffett who is the comp?

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Perhaps. I just don't think he's that smart. :shrug:

:lol: This is where we're at folks. 

Two options:

Trump is not smart enough to know that China is not actually paying for the increased tariffs.

OR

Trump is just flat out lying to his supporters. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 9:31 PM, timschochet said:

I know there are some people that buy into the Rachel Maddow theory that he borrowed money from Deutche, who gets their money from Russia, so Trump is a stooge of Russia.

I'm conscious of this. But leave Russia out of it. It's interesting to me that we got from Maddow the 1995 report. Now from the NYT we get the 1985-1994 reports. All are toplines, no schedules or annexes. So Trump loses continuously for 10 years and loses big, then in 1995 when he applies for help from DB he shows in the black and pays a decent amount. So what happens in 1996 and after? Does he return to huge losses? If so how does something like that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think I personally would like a Congressional explanation of how this happens and a decision if it is good policy.

And while I think your point about small business RE vs megacorporate real estate sharing the same goals or using the same tools is a good one, I have a hard time seeing the 1-1 on how a billionaire casino owner can personally show $100 million per year losses affects my or my family's ability to invest in real estate. And I do generally support business incentives.

I just want to break the partisan logjam with you for a moment as this is Trump from the campaign.

- That's not exactly the quote I have been thinking of. The quote I'm thinking of was Trump at a campaign rally telling his followers that yes it's true that he takes big deductions (not sure anyone knew how big then but anyway...) because of that he was best positioned to understand the loopholes and he would be working for the American people not himself in the White House.

- About the above , Trump may have been right. Maybe Dems do not want to reform the actual loopholes, they receive benefits from such donors as well, I'm sure that is true. But I as an American would like to know how it is that apparently a man can have as much as $250 million tax losses (in 1990 dollars, who knows what this is now...) and yet apparently per you still profit. Or is he really not profiting at all? I really don't care whose tax ox gets gored there.

But I don't think it helps that Buffet showed that Trump was lying when he made that claim, at least to him. So if Trump was lying about Buffett who is the comp?

 

I think you are confusing what I’m saying and maybe it’s my fault, I was speaking of profiting over the long haul......no doubt those years the losses were realized he was taking big hits. Being able to carry forward that loss helps you survive/bounce back and be around for the good years. From experience I can tell you that law helps much much smaller guys as well. Depreciation has also been around forever, none of this is new it just sounds like a bunch are disgruntled about it now cuz Trump. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's lawyers question Congress' power to investigate him, battle House over demand for financial records
 

Quote

 

...

Trump’s personal lawyer, William Consovoy, argued repeatedly that Congress was seeking the president's financial information for what is essentially a law-enforcement purpose – which was outside its authority – rather to work on legislation. The subpoena sought Trump’s financial records to look for inconsistencies in his financial disclosure forms, and whether he misstated his holdings for loans that could leave him beholden to foreigners.

“That is law enforcement,” Consovoy said. “Are you complying with federal law?”

At one point, Mehta asked if Congress could investigate if the president was engaged in corrupt behavior in office.

“I don’t think that’s the proper subject of investigation as to the president,” Consovoy said, although executive agencies could be investigated.

Mehta sounded incredulous, asking whether Congress could have investigated Watergate, which led to President Richard Nixon's resignation, and Whitewater, which led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment. Consovoy initially said he’d had to look at the basis for those investigations.

“They were inquiring as to violations of criminal law,” Mehta said. “It’s pretty straightforward – among other things.”

Consovoy said the question is whether the legislation the committee cited was a valid reason for the subpoena.

“That is still law enforcement," Consovoy said. ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Tim Mak‏Verified account @timkmak

Was in the courtroom today for Judge Mehta's hearing on Trump v Oversight Cmte, regarding subpoena for Trump's financial docs Judge seemed rather skeptical of Trump lawyer argument, and noted that not a single case had ruled that Congress had overstepped in subpoenas since 1880

10:01 AM - 14 May 2019

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.