What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official***President Donald Trump (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeIke said:
bueno said:
As to tax cuts going to the rich, please provide documentation that dividend yields go up aftetr tax cuts. I don't think you'll find that is the case.

When poor people get money they spend it at WalMart. 
Click to expand...
When poor people spend money at Wal Mart, they are injecting cash into the local economy.  Some of their money goes to the employees of the store they shopped at. Some of it goes to the company that the store bought its hoods from.   Some of it goes to the gas station they used to fill up their tank so they could get to the store. A bit if it goes to the millionaire store owners. 

The store owner SHOULD use the extra money to pay the employees more.  But,  that's not how our society works. Instead,  the store owner uses that extra money to enrich himself and (if applicable)  his share owners 

A tax cut to the store owner (the Waltons,  in this case) goes nowhere except to the Waltons.  They aren't going to spend extra money because they got a tax cut.  They're going to use that tax cut to invest and turn their $100 billion fortune into $101 billion.  That benefits no one but the Waltons. 
Click to expand...
It's going to take a sunny vacation in the Caymans

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo said:
Bill Clinton said: "She fought through everything and she prevailed against it all but, you know, then in the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal. She couldn't prevail against that. She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes."

Seriously.   Hillary supporters, how many of you really believe Hillary won? 
Click to expand...
I don't, and I never claimed she did. I'd hoped that the Electoral College would thwart trump but never thought it would actually happen. 

I'm a realist. Ever since election day I've known Trump was going to be our president.

I'm just concentrating on what Trump does now and I'm certainly going to call him out on his mistakes. But I don't feel that he is an illegitimate president. He won.  End of story. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeIke said:
When poor people spend money at Wal Mart, they are injecting cash into the local economy.  Some of their money goes to the employees of the store they shopped at. Some of it goes to the company that the store bought its hoods from.   Some of it goes to the gas station they used to fill up their tank so they could get to the store. A bit if it goes to the millionaire store owners. 

The store owner SHOULD use the extra money to pay the employees more.  But,  that's not how our society works. Instead,  the store owner uses that extra money to enrich himself and (if applicable)  his share owners 

A tax cut to the store owner (the Waltons,  in this case) goes nowhere except to the Waltons.  They aren't going to spend extra money because they got a tax cut.  They're going to use that tax cut to invest and turn their $100 billion fortune into $101 billion.  That benefits no one but the Waltons. 
Click to expand...
You seem to think that invested money doesn't trickle down. Where do you think it goes? Seriously, do you not understand how investing works?

 
Rohn Jambo said:
Bill Clinton said: "She fought through everything and she prevailed against it all but, you know, then in the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal. She couldn't prevail against that. She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes."

Seriously.  Hillary supporters, how many of you really believe Hillary won?
Click to expand...
Judging by the quote you posted, Bill doesn't believe Hillary won.  He's clearly saying that she won the popular vote, not the election.  We know this by reading the entire quote in context, including the bit where he clearly says that she didn't prevail. 

 
Lutherman2112 said:
Could you find me some support for day care costs rising post election and upset parents that mentions a day care other than Advent Lutheran Child Center?

The minimum wage increases are incremental and the first rate hike won't happen until January 2017 and the last will be January 2022.

ETA this google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=Advent+Lutheran+Child+Center&oq=Advent+Lutheran+Child+Center&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q="advent+lutheran+child+center"+minimum+wage&start=10
Click to expand...
I can only refer to the people I know who are already facing increases in child care in advance of the increase in minimum wages.

 
bueno said:
You seem to think that invested money doesn't trickle down. Where do you think it goes? Seriously, do you not understand how investing works?
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly where it goes.  I work as an accountant  for JP Morgan Chase,  which has seen its stock rise 30% since the election. My 401k is doing great.  The average worker,  not so much. 

Rough estimate,  when JP Morgan Chase makes more money I'd guess it works out to approximately 65% shareholders, 15% executives (in addition  to what they already got as shareholders), 5% fees/cost of doing business,  5% taxes, 4% to employees,  2% to charity/community outreach, 4% other. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
Fair enough. What if it wasn't a Trump associate?
Click to expand...
Same thing.  

ETA : but my point is,  it IS a businessman that Trump has a financial interest in freeing.  Trump could free him because it's in his financial interests but it might not be in the best interests of the country.  Definition of a conflict of interest,  and it's  not anything the country has had to deal with before . 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112 said:
It would be nice if you could fast forward to the 21st century. 18th and 19th century presidents faced very different circumstances.

Please see mine .
Click to expand...
Well since we have had only two Presidents in the 21st century, it is really a small sample, but W & Cheney certainly favored the industries they were invested in. If we go to the late 20th century, I think the only business family we can look at is the Kennedys. I don't believe any of the Kennedy fortune was given up, though other family members probably took care of business affairs. It would be hard to believe he wasn't aware of his family's business dealings though.  Jimmy Carter gave up his peanut farm, but that is nothing compared to the Trump empire. Trump is unique.

 
MikeIke said:
Same thing.  

ETA : but my point is,  it IS a businessman that Trump has a financial interest in freeing.  Trump could free him because it's in his financial interests but it might not be in the best interests of the country.  Definition of a conflict of interest,  and it's  not anything the country has had to deal with before . 
Click to expand...
Or maybe you free him because it is the right thing to do.

 
MikeIke said:
I understand perfectly where it goes.  I work as an accountant  for JP Morgan Chase,  which has seen its stock rise 30% since the election. My 401k is doing great.  The average worker,  not so much. 

Rough estimate,  when JP Morgan Chase makes more money I'd guess it works out to approximately 65% shareholders, 15% executives (in addition  to what they already got as shareholders), 5% fees/cost of doing business,  5% taxes, 4% to employees,  2% to charity/community outreach, 4% other. 
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, the money circulates throughout the economy. I am amazed you are in the financial sector and see things the way you do.

 
bueno said:
Well since we have had only two Presidents in the 21st century, it is really a small sample, but W & Cheney certainly favored the industries they were invested in. If we go to the late 20th century, I think the only business family we can look at is the Kennedys. I don't believe any of the Kennedy fortune was given up, though other family members probably took care of business affairs. It would be hard to believe he wasn't aware of his family's business dealings though.  Jimmy Carter gave up his peanut farm, but that is nothing compared to the Trump empire. Trump is unique.
Click to expand...
What a great model of success for the American people those 8 years were

 
bueno said:
Nevertheless, the money circulates throughout the economy. I am amazed you are in the financial sector and see things the way you do.
Click to expand...
When the cash goes to the richest people,  it doesn't circulate very much. They save it,  or they invest it so it gets split up between other rich people. When the poor people get money they spend it,  and it gets recirculated throughout the economy. 

 
MikeIke said:
When the cash goes to the richest people,  it doesn't circulate very much. They save it,  or they invest it so it gets split up between other rich people. When the poor people get money they spend it,  and it gets recirculated throughout the economy. 
Click to expand...
But they don't put it under their mattress. It still circulates in the economy.

 
bueno said:
Or maybe you free him because it is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Hopefully hostage type situations like this don't happen again, but Trump isn't POTUS yet, and it's obvious this not divesting himself will be a real problem.  Not to mention putting people in harms way with his investments being targets.

 
Cheney promised to divest himself from Halliburton.  He continued to claim during the W. Presidency that he had divested himself from Halliburton.  Cheney still retained 433,000 stock options, but I suppose he could claim that he was divested so long as he didn't exercise the options.  I have no idea if he exercised the options after he left service, but you could see how that would be a conflict of interest.  In any case, Cheney at least tried to give the appearance that he was avoiding conflicts of interest.  He wasn't out there saying, "Hey, everyone knows about me and Halliburton!"  Cheney also claimed to put all his investments into a blind trust.  As did W. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Cheney promised to divest himself from Halliburton.  He continued to claim during the W. Presidency that he had divested himself from Halliburton.  Cheney still retained 433,000 stock options, but I suppose he could claim that he was divested so long as he didn't exercise the options.  I have no idea if he exercised the options after he left service, but you could see how that would be a conflict of interest.  In any case, Cheney at least tried to give the appearance that he was avoiding conflicts of interest.  He wasn't out there saying, "Hey, everyone knows about me and Halliburton!"  Cheney also claimed to put all his investments into a blind trust.  As did W. 
Click to expand...
At least they made the effort to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. If Trump did that much it would help.

 
bueno said:
But they don't put it under their mattress. It still circulates in the economy.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't ,  it just goes between the bank accounts of the richest of the rich. Hedge fund managers,  financial advisors,  and business executives are the only ones who see any of that money. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
Well since we have had only two Presidents in the 21st century, it is really a small sample, but W & Cheney certainly favored the industries they were invested in. If we go to the late 20th century, I think the only business family we can look at is the Kennedys. I don't believe any of the Kennedy fortune was given up, though other family members probably took care of business affairs. It would be hard to believe he wasn't aware of his family's business dealings though.  Jimmy Carter gave up his peanut farm, but that is nothing compared to the Trump empire. Trump is unique.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you found facts about the Kennedys before you infer. Kennedy put his holdings in a blind trust.

And once again, its 2016, not 1960.

Could you please fast forward to reality?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conversely the last two times we raised taxes (Clinton and Obama; in Obama's case it was actually an end to the Bush tax cuts), it DID spur the economy. Again, I don't know why this happened, but it did. It certainly has made me reconsider my own ideas about economics (I grew up believing in supply side.)

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
At least they made the effort to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. If Trump did that much it would help.
Click to expand...
A good test case will be the Trump National Hotel.  Although the GSA is backing off giving an authoritative interpretation right now, any fair reading of the lease with the GSA requires him to divest.  No person holding elected office may benefit from the lease.  The language is clear. 

In other situations, there are tough questions.  If Trump divests, what's to stop a foreign interest from bidding over market value to carry favor?  These issues are easier when you're just dealing with securities.  But what's clear is that there has to be some type of solution that tries to minimize the conflicts of interest.  Such as putting the businesses in the hands of a true third party voting trust.  Like with Cheney, it's an imperfect solution as Trump could still make decisions based on maximizing the value of the businesses he intends to return to , but with full disclosure, it's likely the best we could do. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
A good test case will be the Trump National Hotel.  Although the GSA is backing off giving an authoritative interpretation right now, any fair reading of the lease with the GSA requires him to divest.  No person holding elected office may benefit from the lease.  The language is clear. 

In other situations, there are tough questions.  If Trump divests, what's to stop a foreign interest from bidding over market value to carry favor?  These issues are easier when you're just dealing with securities.  But what's clear is that there has to be some type of solution that tries to minimize the conflicts of interest.  Such as putting the businesses in the hands of a true third party voting trust.  Like with Cheney, it's an imperfect solution as Trump could still make decisions based on maximizing the value of the businesses he intends to return to , but with full disclosure, it's likely the best we could do. 
Click to expand...
I'd take it.

But I don't expect that much. I think the Gingrich 'suggestion' of just changing the laws and that the president can pardon anyone he just damn well pleases is a signal of where their head is at. It's not the first time, Giuliani said it too.

I genuinely hope the GSA has the balls to sue and create an early test case.

 
Bottom line and this is my own personal opinion: Trump supporters don't give a rat's ### about conflict of interest.

Caring about the conflict would require objective thought, analysis, reevaluation, and a decision. That's entirely too much to evaluate for the average voter. The average voter likes to support a view that can be summed up by a phrase that fits on a bumper sticker.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
A good test case will be the Trump National Hotel.  Although the GSA is backing off giving an authoritative interpretation right now, any fair reading of the lease with the GSA requires him to divest.  No person holding elected office may benefit from the lease.  The language is clear. 

In other situations, there are tough questions.  If Trump divests, what's to stop a foreign interest from bidding over market value to carry favor?  These issues are easier when you're just dealing with securities.  But what's clear is that there has to be some type of solution that tries to minimize the conflicts of interest.  Such as putting the businesses in the hands of a true third party voting trust.  Like with Cheney, it's an imperfect solution as Trump could still make decisions based on maximizing the value of the businesses he intends to return to , but with full disclosure, it's likely the best we could do. 
Click to expand...
Yes,  the language of the lease is clear.  No elected official shall own any part of this agreement (paraphrasing) 

Once he takes the oath of office,  he's in violation of the lease.  Once any foreign officer books space in the hotel,  Trump is in violation on the Constitution because of the emoluments clause.  It's a clear constitutional problem.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeIke said:
Yes,  the language of the lease is clear.  No elected official shall own any part of this agreement (paraphrasing) 

Once he takes the oath of office,  he's in violation of the lease.  Once any foreign officer books space in the hotel,  Trump is in violation on the Constitution because of the emoluments clause.  It's a clear constitutional problem.   
Click to expand...
Trump knows annulments better than the lawyers.  Trust me, he has the best annulments

 
Lutherman2112 said:
Bottom line and this is my own personal opinion: Trump supporters don't give a rat's ### about conflict of interest.

Caring about the conflict would require objective thought, analysis, reevaluation, and a decision. That's entirely too much to evaluate for the average voter. The average voter likes to support a view that can be summed up by a phrase that fits on a bumper sticker.
Click to expand...
This is true.  They don't really care.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shader said:
This is true.  They don't really care.  
Click to expand...
Yes it's true,  his supporters don't care.  But I wonder if Congress will care enough to make an issue of it.  Elizabeth Warren certainly does,  and I hope she keeps at it. 

It's a huge issue. 

 
MikeIke said:
shader said:
This is true.  They don't really care.  
Click to expand...
Yes it's true,  his supporters don't care.  But I wonder if Congress will care enough to make an issue of it.  Elizabeth Warren certainly does,  and I hope she keeps at it. 

It's a huge issue. 
Click to expand...
Surely they work out a solution to divest him of this specific issue since the conflict is contractual, but he keeps all the other ties that are just as problematic.

 
MikeIke said:
Yes it's true,  his supporters don't care.  But I wonder if Congress will care enough to make an issue of it.  Elizabeth Warren certainly does,  and I hope she keeps at it. 

It's a huge issue. 
Click to expand...
Maybe she can get the Cherokee nation behind her

 
timschochet said:
Conversely the last two times we raised taxes (Clinton and Obama; in Obama's case it was actually an end to the Bush tax cuts), it DID spur the economy. Again, I don't know why this happened, but it did. It certainly has made me reconsider my own ideas about economics (I grew up believing in supply side.)
Click to expand...
I think the multiplier effect can partially explain taxes and the economy. When income taxes are cut, some of the increase in personal income is saved (small multiplier) and not spent (big multiplier). When taxes are raised, the government spends more on food stamps, military, etc (big multiplier). But, if the federal deficit gets too big, the service on the debt (no multiplier effect) can or will eventually come into play.  I think corporate taxes are another matter. 

 
MikeIke said:
No it doesn't ,  it just goes between the bank accounts of the richest of the rich. Hedge fund managers,  financial advisors,  and business executives are the only ones who see any of that money. 
Click to expand...
Then it doesn't grow.

 
timschochet said:
But bueno, the last time we had a tax cut (2001) it didn't spur the economy. I thought it would, but it didn't. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...
Depends on your yardstick - the stock market or the GDP. I would have to go back and research, but "the economy" is too vague a term.

 
In fact, both viewed tobacco as an unsustainable crop.  Washington first, and later Jefferson, moved to small grains (wheat mostly, I believe) and in Jefferson's case - clover at Monticello.  I don't believe we had much wheat exporting going on in the late 1700s/early 1800s, particularly directly to foreign governments. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Kiddnets
How did you become a fan of your favorite team(s)?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
ConstruxBoy
ConstruxBoy
Caveman33
No One's Making Fun of Scooter Kids Anymore
Replies
2
Views
128
Major
Major
fatness
FBI finds largest cache of "finished explosive devices" in FBI history
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snoopy
Snoopy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top