Russia and trump

[Chrysippus]

Really? 44% of Americans won’t pay federal income taxes.

And not all of those are poor people.

 

[Klingsor]

If a revolution were to occur wanna take bets as to which side Creek would be on? The working poor and middle class or the 1%?

There's another question: which of them would be on *his* side?

 

[b.c.]

CNN: Mueller looking into whether Russian oligarchs illegally funneled money to Trump's campaign
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-illegally-funneled-money-to-Trump-s-campaign
Turns out Trump associate's meeting with a Russian at a remote oceanic island *wasn't* coincidence

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

Mueller's investigation has cost the taxpayers 6.7 million dollars, a number that pales to the amount Mr Trump spends visiting his home at Mar-a Lago to play golf.

So when will you be upset regarding the amount spent by the Obamas on vacations?

You must also be horrified at the fact that Trump is donating his salary.

 

[phonehome]

First President Obama took two vacations a year neither at places he owned and spent most weekends in the WH or a few out at Camp David and when he played golf it was often in or around DC where it cost the federal government nothing (Andrews) or next to nothing.

Second other than the one time he made big show we do nor know for sure he has in fact kept doing it.

Third even if he is I am sure he is calling that "donating to charity" and getting a tax break because of it.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

The top 1 percent pays almost 40 percent of all taxes. You can’t be so hatefilled that you ignore math.

She’s not hatefilled..... just an idiot.

 

[StormfrontFL]

So when will you be upset regarding the amount spent by the Obamas on vacations?

You must also be horrified at the fact that Trump is donating his salary.

You really are that dumb!
According to all reports the amount the Obamas spent on vacations in eight years is about to be beaten by Trump already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...three-times-higher-than-obama-s-a8131586.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#6a5744f936e4

As for his not taking a salary he sure found a way to make money off that (not that you lemmings care)
http://www.arbiternews.com/2017/03/...promise-make-expensive-president-u-s-history/
Making more money than his salary would be...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/donald-trump-salary-donation

 

[Max_Polo]

If not for government, it would be wealthy pays nothing and poor receives nothing.

That is certainly not true unless you entirely discount all charitable contributions that are directed to income-based scholarships, food pantries, the Red Cross, and most others as well as church contributions that go to missions, food pantries, assistance to disabled, etc.

...you would prefer being wealthy.

No one could possibly argue otherwise, but that is not the issue. The question is the degree to which I should be allowed to determine how my money is spent vs the government doing so.

 

[Max_Polo]

Third even if he is I am sure he is calling that "donating to charity" and getting a tax break because of it.

If his salary is $400k and he otherwise would pay about $200k in tax on that amount, but instead donates it to charity (or the Treasury), he is still out the net $200k he would have otherwise received after taxes. This is obviously a symbolic gesture regardless - the amount involved is rounding error for both employer and employee.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

First President Obama took two vacations a year neither at places he owned and spent most weekends in the WH or a few out at Camp David and when he played golf it was often in or around DC where it cost the federal government nothing (Andrews) or next to nothing.

Second other than the one time he made big show we do nor know for sure he has in fact kept doing it.

Third even if he is I am sure he is calling that "donating to charity" and getting a tax break because of it.

You really are that dumb!
According to all reports the amount the Obamas spent on vacations in eight years is about to be beaten by Trump already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...three-times-higher-than-obama-s-a8131586.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#6a5744f936e4

As for his not taking a salary he sure found a way to make money off that (not that you lemmings care)
http://www.arbiternews.com/2017/03/...promise-make-expensive-president-u-s-history/
Making more money than his salary would be...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/donald-trump-salary-donation

Ah yes...... because being the only president in history to donate 100% of his salary makes him so utterly evil.

He could cure cancer and the left would vilanoze him for overpopulating the earth.

 

[Klingsor]

That is certainly not true unless you entirely discount all charitable contributions that are directed to income-based scholarships, food pantries, the Red Cross, and most others as well as church contributions that go to missions, food pantries, assistance to disabled, etc.

Fair enough, but most of these organizations will tell you they're already stretched to the limit. They certainly wouldn't be able to pick up the slack if government assistance disappeared.

The question is the degree to which I should be allowed to determine how my money is spent vs the government doing so.

As long as we're agreed it's a question of degree.

 

[Klingsor]

He could cure cancer and the left would villainize him for overpopulating the earth.

Donald Trump will be remembered for many things, but . . .

 

[Max_Polo]

Fair enough, but most of these organizations will tell you they're already stretched to the limit. They certainly wouldn't be able to pick up the slack if government assistance disappeared.

They can't well say they have too much money, right?

And if government assistance disappeared because taxes were lowered, one cannot predict the degree to which money not confiscated by the government would be deployed to help those in need, invest in facilities or intellectual capital and hire the unemployed.

 

[TexanStar]

And if government assistance disappeared because taxes were lowered, one cannot predict the degree to which money not confiscated by the government would be deployed to help those in need, invest in facilities or intellectual capital and hire the unemployed.

Well, it's not like the US is the only country on the planet. There are almost 200 countries on the Earth, each with their own tax code.

Generally speaking, the countries with the lowest domestic tax rates do not show up in any rankings about the best countries to live. Singapore is the only exception.

Conversely, many of the countries on such lists feature comparatively high personal taxes.

 

[Klingsor]

And if government assistance disappeared because taxes were lowered, one cannot predict the degree to which money not confiscated by the government would be deployed to help those in need, invest in facilities or intellectual capital and hire the unemployed.

That's just the point: one cannot predict. One can only hope such charitable impulses and/or economic gains continue unabated week after week, month after month, year after year. As opposed to the more consistent, reliable forms of government assistance.

 

[keenobserver]

Ah yes...... because being the only president in history to donate 100% of his salary makes him so utterly evil.

He could cure cancer and the left would vilanoze him for overpopulating the earth.

JFK did not keep any of his salary. It was donated to the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America. It has been mentioned in several later biographies of JFK that Jackie was not happy with that arrangement because she did not like having to justify her expenses to JFK's father.

 

[keenobserver]

That's just the point: one cannot predict. One can only hope such charitable impulses and/or economic gains continue unabated week after week, month after month, year after year. As opposed to the more consistent, reliable forms of government assistance.

Actually, we can predict. Very little if anything would flow to the poor or those in need . These programs came about in the first place because charities could not effectively provide enough resources to do the job. It is interesting to me that people are being told or assuming that the tax cuts will result in money flowing to workers or people in need. A few companies announced some bonus payments, after years of stagnant wages, but in reality they would have lowered their taxes more when the tax rate was higher. Now that it is lower, the money is going in their pockets / and or buying back shares of stock to drive up the price to earn even higher corporate bonuses for the CEO's.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

JFK did not keep any of his salary. It was donated to the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America. It has been mentioned in several later biographies of JFK that Jackie was not happy with that arrangement because she did not like having to justify her expenses to JFK's father.

And the infamous womanizer JFK donates to a notoriously anti-gay organization.

 

[keenobserver]

And the infamous womanizer JFK donates to a notoriously anti-gay organization.

In 1961 there were no pro gay organizations - seriously. You could be arrested for being in a suspected gay bar.
I'm guessing that the scouts were chosen because as long as a kid believed in God in one form or another he was welcomed. It was ecumenical as opposed to strictly Catholic.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

In 1961 there were no pro gay organizations - seriously. You could be arrested for being in a suspected gay bar.
I'm guessing that the scouts were chosen because as long as a kid believed in God in one form or another he was welcomed. It was ecumenical as opposed to strictly Catholic.

So..... someone references a President for being a “champion” of the public, for “supposedly” not accepting a salary, (when he came from deep dirty money), who was personally more of a womanizer than Trump, as an example of being “better than trump”...... wow.