The NYT has been reporting on the President's taxes. It is breaking news, but seems that someone mailed tax documents to a reporter.
IS it fake news? Do you believe that someone had and mailed the tax documents?
Will it matter, or further polarize the electorate?
Quote from: clean on September 27, 2020, 03:17:55 PM
The NYT has been reporting on the President's taxes. It is breaking news, but seems that someone mailed tax documents to a reporter.
IS it fake news? Do you believe that someone had and mailed the tax documents?
Will it matter, or further polarize the electorate?
Trumpsters will call it fake, whether fake or real.
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal; tax evasion perfectly illegal.
Quote from: dismalist on September 27, 2020, 03:42:00 PM
Tax avoidance is perfectly legal; tax evasion perfectly illegal.
I didn't think tax evasion was alleged to be the concern. I thought it was that he isn't worth nearly as much as he claims, casting doubt on his business acumen.
Of course it's true. It was obvious back in 2016 that he pays almost no taxes.
It makes no difference to my opinion of Trump, who is a scumbag, supported by scumbags, leading the country even further to nationalism, and continually moving people closer to fascism.
Will the news make a difference to the election? Hard to predict. If his supporters didn't believe all the previous evidence, then why believe this? Their capacity for bad judgment seems bottomless.
It seems to me that the time for tax returns was four years ago.
Still, at least we have confirmation of what's up: he's squandered $400mil for the second time, and is on the verge of bankruptcy again. His only way out is presidential grifting and branding.
Tax evasion? Pish posh. Remember that he can shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.
Quote from: RatGuy on September 28, 2020, 07:55:21 AM
Tax evasion? Pish posh. Remember that he can shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.
Just kind of curious; how does this differ
in principle, if not in degree from
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't vote for Hillary."
"If you don't vote for me, you ain't black."
Is the idea of a "base" who should vote for a particular party's candidate
no matter what a terrible idea, or only a terrible idea if it's for the "wrong" party?
I am completely unsurprised. If his taxes had shown him to be a billionaire, he would have them plastered on billboards. Since he wanted to hide them so badly, they could only show him as the poor businessman that he is. It is useful to see how businesses manipulate the tax system. That's something I'd love to see a greater discussion of.
The one thing that seems to be missing form these tax documents is the influx of Russian money. His children have admitted in the past to funds from Russian sources being used for a number of the golf courses. This is, minimum, a huge conflict of interest. I would love to see laws passed that federal elected officials must disclose/ divest these kinds of interests. Under normal circumstances Trump would not qualify for a top security clearance because of these issues. That's the sort of thing the public needs to know.
But the fact that he's a crappy businessman with a creative tax attorney? Old news.
The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.
"Aha! Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"
"Aha! Trump pays no taxes!"
It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.
Quote from: writingprof on September 28, 2020, 08:46:05 AM
The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.
"Aha! Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"
"Aha! Trump pays no taxes!"
It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.
I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it). What this shows is that he either:
1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.
Or
2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.
Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing. However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes. So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 28, 2020, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 28, 2020, 08:46:05 AM
The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.
"Aha! Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"
"Aha! Trump pays no taxes!"
It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.
I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it). What this shows is that he either:
1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.
Or
2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.
Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing. However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes. So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives.
I don't believe the Times accused Mr. Trump of being a tax
evader, but rather of being a tax
avoider. Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is undertaken by grandmothers as well as most others.
dismalist: if Ivanka was paid consulting fees while working for the organization would that be a problem?
Again, just curiosity. Don't know if that makes any difference re tax law.
Quote from: dismalist on September 28, 2020, 10:05:32 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 28, 2020, 09:56:19 AM
Quote from: writingprof on September 28, 2020, 08:46:05 AM
The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.
"Aha! Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"
"Aha! Trump pays no taxes!"
It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.
I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it). What this shows is that he either:
1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.
Or
2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.
Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing. However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes. So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives.
I don't believe the Times accused Mr. Trump of being a tax evader, but rather of being a tax avoider. Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is undertaken by grandmothers as well as most others.
Right, which means he has been losing tonnes of money and is not as a great business man as he claims. This is scenario 1.
If he actually is a good business man, it means that he cheated of his filings and is evading taxes. This would be scenario 2. There is no evidence that he is lying, so it appears that he is just not a very good business man.
I don't think its quite clear whether he is a pure evader or pure avoider. Probably its mixed. First there is whether every claimed deduction is an actual legal deduction on the face of it. Then, one would have to really see whether the money claimed really falls into the category he put down. Also, are the losses real or manufactured to offset gains?
It won't change the mind of a single voter. I voted against him days ago, as I am sure did many who voted for him. I think October surprises have little value this time around and the last debate will be pretty much meaningless...maybe all of them will, since almost everyone has made up their mind, as in "I'd vote for Biden over Trump even if he is proven to have Alzheimers" or "I'd vote for Trump even if it is proven that he committed treason or actually shot people on 5th Ave." There's very little room to run, and many can vote early and have. The legal challenges to all of that will be a mixed bag. I am sure some votes will be ruled out, but I highly doubt that an entire state's mail in or early in person ballots will be voided.
"He was able to do so both because many of his businesses report losing large amounts of money — which reduces his taxable income — and because he has engaged in questionable tax practices. Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in hairstyling for television."
EVASION not Avoidance. Declaring personal residences as investments to expense personal expenses is not Avoidance.
But What do I know? Certainly the president would not lie to me and say that his taxes are too complicated for my simple mind to comprehend.
Hopefully, the New York courts will have an opportunity to investigate whether his tax declarations and loan declarations were fraudulent (in the one hand showing how little the property was worth to determine taxes, and in the second, how much they are worth as security for the loan).
IF Ivanka was paid as a consultant, then it could be argued that the expense would be appropriate, but it would create a taxable income for her. (It may be argued that something may need to be shown to document that the money was actually earned - that there was some 'work product' to support the expense)
Quote from: clean on September 28, 2020, 10:46:55 AM
"He was able to do so both because many of his businesses report losing large amounts of money — which reduces his taxable income — and because he has engaged in questionable tax practices. Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in hairstyling for television."
EVASION not Avoidance. Declaring personal residences as investments to expense personal expenses is not Avoidance.
...
Hopefully, the New York courts will have an opportunity to investigate whether his tax declarations and loan declarations were fraudulent (in the one hand showing how little the property was worth to determine taxes, and in the second, how much they are worth as security for the loan).
IF Ivanka was paid as a consultant, then it could be argued that the expense would be appropriate, but it would create a taxable income for her. (It may be argued that something may need to be shown to document that the money was actually earned - that there was some 'work product' to support the expense)
The citation is interesting. It starts with "most people consider ... " What matters is what a tax lawyer thinks, not most people. The tax code drives me crazy, as it was designed to do. Which is why we need lawyers.
I'm guessing that the plane and the haircuts are probably legitimate business expenses, at least in part. The residences may also be, again, at least in part. What part has to be figured out by a lawyer.
Interviews with Erik Trump indicate that a property in Up State NY is 'the family compound' but for tax purposes it is an 'investment'.
Hmmm... IF ONLY I could list my personal residence as an 'investment', it would allow me to deduct the interest expense, property taxes, electric bills, water bills, lawn mowing expenses, seasonal flowers, painting, window washing, maid services, soap, toothpaste, ....
But you are right... Maybe one of my children should act as a 'consultant' and help me decide what should be included in the expenses.
Yes, the wealthy pay a lower effective rate than most workers. Why is this news? Taxes are for the little people as we were once told by Leona Helmsley.
She went to the slammer, if I recall.
What we gots heah be a total lack of regahd for the law.
The NYT is going to release additional articles over the coming weeks. I guess they want to atone for their incessant coverage of the Clinton emails by covering another non-issue for weeks prior to an election.
Quote from: dismalist on September 28, 2020, 11:11:03 AM
Quote from: clean on September 28, 2020, 10:46:55 AM
"He was able to do so both because many of his businesses report losing large amounts of money — which reduces his taxable income — and because he has engaged in questionable tax practices. Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in hairstyling for television."
EVASION not Avoidance. Declaring personal residences as investments to expense personal expenses is not Avoidance.
...
Hopefully, the New York courts will have an opportunity to investigate whether his tax declarations and loan declarations were fraudulent (in the one hand showing how little the property was worth to determine taxes, and in the second, how much they are worth as security for the loan).
IF Ivanka was paid as a consultant, then it could be argued that the expense would be appropriate, but it would create a taxable income for her. (It may be argued that something may need to be shown to document that the money was actually earned - that there was some 'work product' to support the expense)
The citation is interesting. It starts with "most people consider ... " What matters is what a tax lawyer thinks, not most people. The tax code drives me crazy, as it was designed to do. Which is why we need lawyers.
I'm guessing that the plane and the haircuts are probably legitimate business expenses, at least in part. The residences may also be, again, at least in part. What part has to be figured out by a lawyer.
I think the article is framed as it is because of the story's political implications, rather than its legal implications. So far, his tax avoidance seems to be legal. He even said in the debates that if he wasn't paying taxes it was because he (=his lawyers and accountants) were very good at taking advantage of legal loopholes, and Ds should have fixed those loopholes when they were in power.
The reason we're talking about it is because of the consequences for his public image. So in the political domain, it does matter whether people consider various business write-offs, such as haircuts, to fall under personal expenses. Tax lawyers' opinions are relevant for when it comes to putting him in jail, but "most people"'s opinions are relevant when it comes to getting him out of the White House.
The point that I think the public misses on this is what exactly constitutes a business "losing money." If you're deducting expenses in excess of your earnings, you've "lost" but for those involved in real estate, the biggest offset to their income is often in the form of depreciation, the expected decrease in value over the life of an item. (Even if it is in effect maintaining its value or appreciating, although that's another issue...) I'm be surprised if anyone in commercial real estate who has a semi-competent tax professional pays more than $750 in taxes. The code as it is written is so favorable to real estate developers and investors that you just don't need to work too hard to make that happen. If they say he "lost 30MM" for example, this could easily mean that he made 20MM of profits and took 50MM of depreciation. You can call that "poor business skill" but anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind either way will see it as taking advantage of the code as it is written. At this level, 70k deductions on hair styling are less than rounding errors and likely intentionally put there in anticipation of a future talking point.
Quote from: ergative on September 29, 2020, 01:28:41 AM
Quote from: dismalist on September 28, 2020, 11:11:03 AM
Quote from: clean on September 28, 2020, 10:46:55 AM
"He was able to do so both because many of his businesses report losing large amounts of money — which reduces his taxable income — and because he has engaged in questionable tax practices. Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in hairstyling for television."
EVASION not Avoidance. Declaring personal residences as investments to expense personal expenses is not Avoidance.
...
Hopefully, the New York courts will have an opportunity to investigate whether his tax declarations and loan declarations were fraudulent (in the one hand showing how little the property was worth to determine taxes, and in the second, how much they are worth as security for the loan).
IF Ivanka was paid as a consultant, then it could be argued that the expense would be appropriate, but it would create a taxable income for her. (It may be argued that something may need to be shown to document that the money was actually earned - that there was some 'work product' to support the expense)
The citation is interesting. It starts with "most people consider ... " What matters is what a tax lawyer thinks, not most people. The tax code drives me crazy, as it was designed to do. Which is why we need lawyers.
I'm guessing that the plane and the haircuts are probably legitimate business expenses, at least in part. The residences may also be, again, at least in part. What part has to be figured out by a lawyer.
I think the article is framed as it is because of the story's political implications, rather than its legal implications. So far, his tax avoidance seems to be legal. He even said in the debates that if he wasn't paying taxes it was because he (=his lawyers and accountants) were very good at taking advantage of legal loopholes, and Ds should have fixed those loopholes when they were in power.
I think some of it is standard. There are other parts that seem highly questionable, and maybe even fraudulent, like hiring your family members as consultants and then writing off millions of dollars in payments to them as business expenses. If it turns out those family members didn't really do any work on the projects that would justify those amounts isn't that just tax fraud?
Quote from: Caracal on September 29, 2020, 04:57:01 AM
I think some of it is standard. There are other parts that seem highly questionable, and maybe even fraudulent, like hiring your family members as consultants and then writing off millions of dollars in payments to them as business expenses. If it turns out those family members didn't really do any work on the projects that would justify those amounts isn't that just tax fraud?
That's a big if. It certainly looks like the family members were (and are) heavily involved in the operations of the organization.
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 29, 2020, 04:57:01 AM
I think some of it is standard. There are other parts that seem highly questionable, and maybe even fraudulent, like hiring your family members as consultants and then writing off millions of dollars in payments to them as business expenses. If it turns out those family members didn't really do any work on the projects that would justify those amounts isn't that just tax fraud?
That's a big if. It certainly looks like the family members were (and are) heavily involved in the operations of the organization.
Maybe Don Jr. not so much? I guess I'm still confused as to how you can oversee a building project for an organization and get paid a hefty consulting fee while on the payroll.
This topic is a loser for Biden at least as far as the debate goes. Trump will attack him on Hunter, but if Biden tries to use this we're back to tax avoidance is smart business, and we have the added attraction that Biden probably voted yes on the tax legislation that was "utilized". Trump (from what I can see) really pushed the boundaries here and may very well have violated the law. Makes no difference right now.
Now, if there was evidence that Russian or Belarussian oligarchs really hold the notes then that would be something.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 29, 2020, 11:11:21 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Caracal on September 29, 2020, 04:57:01 AM
I think some of it is standard. There are other parts that seem highly questionable, and maybe even fraudulent, like hiring your family members as consultants and then writing off millions of dollars in payments to them as business expenses. If it turns out those family members didn't really do any work on the projects that would justify those amounts isn't that just tax fraud?
That's a big if. It certainly looks like the family members were (and are) heavily involved in the operations of the organization.
[. . . ]
This topic is a loser for Biden at least as far as the debate goes.
[. . .]
I have a different opinion. Bill Clinton's history of infidelity made it impossible for Hillary Clinton to use Trump's history of sexual assault, extramarital affairs, and general misogyny against him. If Trump brings up Hunger Biden and the Ukraine, then Biden can paint Trump and his family as the grifters that they are. E.g., no one in Biden's family ever personally profited from money donated to children with cancer.
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
There are certainly valid reasons that Trump would owe no taxes. Depreciation is certainly one of them. He lost, 92M IF I correctly recall the number on the Trump Casino. It is certainly possible that the loss for that one venture could wipe out years and years of profits, assuming that there were not other legitimate expenses (like interest expense and depreciation) that would also wipe out the earnings.
Also, as a finance person, I can certainly tell you that Cash Flow and NOT accounting or taxable income is what matters.
Can hair care be deductible? I bet it can! In his position as a TV personality, it certainly would sound legitimate to me. Listing your 'family compound' (as Erik called it) as an Investment property is not legitimate
Will it matter? I really dont think that it will matter one bit! Those that are the hard core supporters will not change, and those that are voting Against Trump (rather than FOR Biden) wont flip either.
I could be wrong, but If I recall the poll numbers correctly, this is still pretty far from the election, but the number of undecided is at or near record lows for this time frame.
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
Between January 2020 and now, the unemployment rate, depending on the state, has increased by 2-3 times. How many of the unemployed have a stock portfolio that they can use to feed and house themselves? I'm assuming that at least some of those who are unemployed typically vote in a presidential election, and that some of these live in MAGAland.
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
That's definitely true, but that's a very narrow way of thinking of the impact of COVID. I don't know about you, but the incompetent federal response to this crisis has had all sorts of direct negative effects on my life. Without any sort of federal coordination and leadership, you just have everyone making up their own plan as they go and the result is individuals are forced to try to figure out who they should listen to and how they should balance risks. The personal effects of this are disastrous, as all the people I know trying to do their own work while also supervising their 6 year old on Zoom could tell you.
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 07:22:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
Between January 2020 and now, the unemployment rate, depending on the state, has increased by 2-3 times. How many of the unemployed have a stock portfolio that they can use to feed and house themselves? I'm assuming that at least some of those who are unemployed typically vote in a presidential election, and that some of these live in MAGAland.
A reasonable response question is: What has Biden proposed that would actually fix individual situations that worsened in the past four years?
Sure, Trump's a bad leader in many aspects, but I have yet to see Biden make a case for why Biden that includes a positive, actionable plan that could work. "Trump's a bad guy" is not a compelling reason to vote for Biden who has not shown himself to be a good guy, based on his record, but did somehow get several much better candidates to drop out early during the primaries.
Not that Trump is clean on this, but the Hunter thing is a real controversy. I'm just tired of seeing every idiot spouse and and kid monetize their family member's elected office. Spousal hires and legacy admissions also rub me the wrong way. Are we even pretending to have a meritocracy as opposed to a dynastic environment? Every single person in politics has family that are either in government work they received through mom and dad or on the dole through some related activity in business or lobbying.
Ok, but in a free country, how do you propose preventing those idiot kids of politicians from doing that?
You'll notice that nobody is talking about Trump's taxes today.
I wouldn't be surprised if the story is effectively dead now, although I suppose there's still plenty of time to revive it.
Quote from: polly_mer on September 30, 2020, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 07:22:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
Between January 2020 and now, the unemployment rate, depending on the state, has increased by 2-3 times. How many of the unemployed have a stock portfolio that they can use to feed and house themselves? I'm assuming that at least some of those who are unemployed typically vote in a presidential election, and that some of these live in MAGAland.
A reasonable response question is: What has Biden proposed that would actually fix individual situations that worsened in the past four years?
Sure, Trump's a bad leader in many aspects, but I have yet to see Biden make a case for why Biden that includes a positive, actionable plan that could work. "Trump's a bad guy" is not a compelling reason to vote for Biden who has not shown himself to be a good guy, based on his record, but did somehow get several much better candidates to drop out early during the primaries.
I actually think that "Trump's a bad guy" is a pretty compelling reason to vote for Biden given the degree of "bad" that he represents. When I say this, I am not referring to his policies. While I dislike most of his politics, I can see why some people agree with them. What I am really referring to is the threat he poses to the American democratic system. He has started to dismantle it, and given a second term I am convinced that it may be too far. The fact that he is laying the groundwork to contest the election is the most blatant manifestation of this, but it goes much deeper.
I don't think Biden was the best choice for the democrats, or that he would be a great president, but he is the only choice to patch the leak in democracy that Trump has created.
Quote from: Kron3007 on September 30, 2020, 12:05:32 PM
Quote from: polly_mer on September 30, 2020, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 07:22:44 AM
Quote from: pigou on September 29, 2020, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: spork on September 29, 2020, 11:34:33 AM
Really all that Biden has to do is to keep repeating "Are you better off than you were four years ago, before Trump gave his buddies a trillion dollar tax cut? How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors have been killed by Trump's mismanagement and lies during the pandemic?"
Between January 2016 and August 2020, a portfolio invested in the S&P 500 has gone up 62% (with dividends reinvested). It's not a great question to ask, because for a whole lot of people, the answers are going to be "yes" and "none." Neither the economic harm nor the deaths are uniformly distributed across the population.
Between January 2020 and now, the unemployment rate, depending on the state, has increased by 2-3 times. How many of the unemployed have a stock portfolio that they can use to feed and house themselves? I'm assuming that at least some of those who are unemployed typically vote in a presidential election, and that some of these live in MAGAland.
A reasonable response question is: What has Biden proposed that would actually fix individual situations that worsened in the past four years?
Sure, Trump's a bad leader in many aspects, but I have yet to see Biden make a case for why Biden that includes a positive, actionable plan that could work. "Trump's a bad guy" is not a compelling reason to vote for Biden who has not shown himself to be a good guy, based on his record, but did somehow get several much better candidates to drop out early during the primaries.
I actually think that "Trump's a bad guy" is a pretty compelling reason to vote for Biden given the degree of "bad" that he represents. When I say this, I am not referring to his policies. While I dislike most of his politics, I can see why some people agree with them. What I am really referring to is the threat he poses to the American democratic system. He has started to dismantle it, and given a second term I am convinced that it may be too far. The fact that he is laying the groundwork to contest the election is the most blatant manifestation of this, but it goes much deeper.
I don't think Biden was the best choice for the democrats, or that he would be a great president, but he is the only choice to patch the leak in democracy that Trump has created.
+ Avogadro
If elected, Biden will likely be the equivalent of Gerald Ford: a single-term transitional figure as the national nightmare ends. I'm fine with that. Though I would love to see Trump and his family members do prison time for their financial crimes, it probably won't happen, like it didn't happen to Nixon even though he used the CIA, IRS, etc. against people he considered his enemies.
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 12:28:09 PM
If elected, Biden will likely be the equivalent of Gerald Ford: a single-term transitional figure as the national nightmare ends. I'm fine with that. Though I would love to see Trump and his family members do prison time for their financial crimes, it probably won't happen, like it didn't happen to Nixon even though he used the CIA, IRS, etc. against people he considered his enemies.
I'm fine with Biden for a single term. He was not my first, second, or third choice, but he's the best chance I have of a president that doesn't make me cringe on a daily basis. At this point, I'd vote for the Democratic nominee if he were in a coma.
Quote from: Vkw10 on September 30, 2020, 05:39:51 PM
Quote from: spork on September 30, 2020, 12:28:09 PM
If elected, Biden will likely be the equivalent of Gerald Ford: a single-term transitional figure as the national nightmare ends. I'm fine with that. Though I would love to see Trump and his family members do prison time for their financial crimes, it probably won't happen, like it didn't happen to Nixon even though he used the CIA, IRS, etc. against people he considered his enemies.
I'm fine with Biden for a single term. He was not my first, second, or third choice, but he's the best chance I have of a president that doesn't make me cringe on a daily basis. At this point, I'd vote for the Democratic nominee if he were in a coma.
+1
Quote from: financeguy on September 30, 2020, 10:34:24 AM
Not that Trump is clean on this, but the Hunter thing is a real controversy. I'm just tired of seeing every idiot spouse and and kid monetize their family member's elected office. Spousal hires and legacy admissions also rub me the wrong way. Are we even pretending to have a meritocracy as opposed to a dynastic environment? Every single person in politics has family that are either in government work they received through mom and dad or on the dole through some related activity in business or lobbying.
Yes, like Billy Beer
Quote from: Anselm on September 30, 2020, 09:55:16 PM
Quote from: financeguy on September 30, 2020, 10:34:24 AM
Not that Trump is clean on this, but the Hunter thing is a real controversy. I'm just tired of seeing every idiot spouse and and kid monetize their family member's elected office. Spousal hires and legacy admissions also rub me the wrong way. Are we even pretending to have a meritocracy as opposed to a dynastic environment? Every single person in politics has family that are either in government work they received through mom and dad or on the dole through some related activity in business or lobbying.
Yes, like Billy Beer
Seems Ben Franklin got on everybody's nerves trying to get jobs for his many illegitimate sons. Don't know about the girls. Anyway, this has a long and venerable tradition in the US of A, not necessarily founded by one of its Founders! :-)
Quote from: dismalist on September 30, 2020, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Anselm on September 30, 2020, 09:55:16 PM
Quote from: financeguy on September 30, 2020, 10:34:24 AM
Not that Trump is clean on this, but the Hunter thing is a real controversy. I'm just tired of seeing every idiot spouse and and kid monetize their family member's elected office. Spousal hires and legacy admissions also rub me the wrong way. Are we even pretending to have a meritocracy as opposed to a dynastic environment? Every single person in politics has family that are either in government work they received through mom and dad or on the dole through some related activity in business or lobbying.
Yes, like Billy Beer
Seems Ben Franklin got on everybody's nerves trying to get jobs for his many illegitimate sons. Don't know about the girls. Anyway, this has a long and venerable tradition in the US of A, not necessarily founded by one of its Founders! :-)
A tradition that led to the creation of the civil service after the assassination of President Garfield.
Quote from: financeguy on September 30, 2020, 10:34:24 AM
Not that Trump is clean on this, but the Hunter thing is a real controversy. I'm just tired of seeing every idiot spouse and and kid monetize their family member's elected office. Spousal hires and legacy admissions also rub me the wrong way. Are we even pretending to have a meritocracy as opposed to a dynastic environment? Every single person in politics has family that are either in government work they received through mom and dad or on the dole through some related activity in business or lobbying.
Trump is not clean on this? I would say he is much, much dirtier than the Biden's. He literally has his family in official government positions while running his business.
So even if there is something fishy with the Biden's, the choice is between something a little fishy or a big pile of rotten fish.
kaysixteen, I don't know of any way to stop it if the public doesn't care. Obviously there's no political price to pay which would be the obvious solution, but if no one thinks it a big deal, people will continue to do it. That doesn't stop it from being totally bizarre to me that they don't. In an academic environment, legacy admissions are rampant, for example. The fact that people are not constantly bringing this up is surprising to me, but it's just accepted. I know several academic who were totally incompetent and were hired because of a spouse, many for positions that didn't even exist until the other was recruited. No one seems to care that Kamala was able to get a 70k no show job for sleeping with sleazeball Willie Brown. These situations are like mayonnaise. I find it totally disgusting but yet I see people put it on everything.