Trump has finally said something I agree with

[WVPATX]

His tax plan actually has merit. Lowers individual and business taxes, revamps the tax code and eliminates deductions, encourages investment and will grow the economy and jobs.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plan-cuts-taxes-for-millions-1443427200

 

[op2]

His tax plan actually has merit. Lowers individual and business taxes, revamps the tax code and eliminates deductions, encourages investment and will grow the economy and jobs.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plan-cuts-taxes-for-millions-1443427200

The WSJ won't let you view it unless you sign up but I've read Trump's tax plan elsewhere and the store of Jesus feeding the masses with a few loaves and fish comes to mind, which is probably appropriate since Trump has a Messiah complex. Let everyone pay less tax and yet somehow we'll end up with more than enough money.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

The WSJ won't let you view it unless you sign up but I've read Trump's tax plan elsewhere and the store of Jesus feeding the masses with a few loaves and fish comes to mind, which is probably appropriate since Trump has a Messiah complex. Let everyone pay less tax and yet somehow we'll end up with more than enough money.

Agree, it seems he wants to give the middle class a tax break, basically no change for the wealthy and eliminate some deductions and exemptions while spending more on infrastructure and a national health insurance coverage plan. Seems like not enough money to go around. I do like the idea or spending more on infrastructure and universal health care (alone on their merit not counting for how it is paid for).

 

[WVPATX]

I am not commenting on Trump's health care spending or infrastructure spending, but only about his tax plan. It is pro growth. It lowers taxes for everyone, particularly the middle class. It eliminates deductions and greatly simplifies the tax code. It lowers business taxes to 15%. It charges companies a one time fee of 10% to repatriate overseas profits which are approximately $3T. It raises taxes on hedge fund managers due to the elimination of carried interest.

 

[Airport]

I am not commenting on Trump's health care spending or infrastructure spending, but only about his tax plan. It is pro growth. It lowers taxes for everyone, particularly the middle class. It eliminates deductions and greatly simplifies the tax code. It lowers business taxes to 15%. It charges companies a one time fee of 10% to repatriate overseas profits which are approximately $3T. It raises taxes on hedge fund managers due to the elimination of carried interest.

How nice it would be if we didn't have to file a tax return. He missed it completely. Already 47% pay no income tax and 63% pay a total of less than 5% in income tax. With the child tax credit, over 50% of the populace has no incentive to rain in govt. spending that is leading this country down a hazardous road. Pay tax on what you buy and everybody has a dog in the fight. Govt spending is going to break us. Money made oveerseas is already taxed. Let corporations bring it home without taxing it. You wnt high paying jobs, drop corporate tax rate to 0%. They pay dividends, salaries and do great charitable work. Our socialist leaders and socialist people do nothing but cause civil unrest.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

How nice it would be if we didn't have to file a tax return. He missed it completely. Already 47% pay no income tax and 63% pay a total of less than 5% in income tax. With the child tax credit, over 50% of the populace has no incentive to rain in govt. spending that is leading this country down a hazardous road. Pay tax on what you buy and everybody has a dog in the fight. Govt spending is going to break us. Money made oveerseas is already taxed. Let corporations bring it home without taxing it. You wnt high paying jobs, drop corporate tax rate to 0%. They pay dividends, salaries and do great charitable work. Our socialist leaders and socialist people do nothing but cause civil unrest.

This post from you doesn't surprise me one bit. You do realize that consumption tax is hard on the middle class and poor? No corporate taxes? You are a moron. Just what this country needs, more corporate welfare.

 

[WVPATX]

This post from you doesn't surprise me one bit. You do realize that consumption tax is hard on the middle class and poor? No corporate taxes? You are a moron. Just what this country needs, more corporate welfare.

Actually, a zero corporate income tax has merit. If a company makes money, they generally do one of two things. They use the money to invest and grow the company which would create jobs. Or they pay out dividends to the owners of the company which are taxed when received by the owners. This would be a terrific idea to stimulate the economy and create an enormous number of jobs. A non C corp. would still have to pay taxes at the individual level. Currently, a C corp's owners are taxed twice. The first at the corporate level and the second time when dividends are received.

 

[Airport]

This post from you doesn't surprise me one bit. You do realize that consumption tax is hard on the middle class and poor? No corporate taxes? You are a moron. Just what this country needs, more corporate welfare.

For a moment just imagine what it might bring. A lot of pension plans are invested in mutual funds that have corporate stocks in them. By allowing corporation to keep their money the stocks increase in value, dividends are paid out to funds which are then distributed to everybody who then spend on what they want and money is brought back into the treasury. Corporations creat thousands of high paying jobs, how many does welfare and disability payments create? You think govt creates wealth, is only eliminates it. The poor are hurt more by not having jobs because of this admins healthcare law and regulations that inhibit growth. If you can't see that, you must work for somebody else. I run a small business and since Obama, I've lost 22-23% of my revenues. I've cut my employees 25% of their work schedule and don't see an end till several years after Obama is gone and all of his policies are reversed.I pay 8-9000 in tax preparation for a year. If you want to tax corporations, plan on them taking their capital where capital, money, is treated well. Why are corp leaving the US for elsewhere? Those are really high paying jobs. I could go on and on but too many of our countrymen think that corporations are bad, they are not.

 

[Airport]

Actually, a zero corporate income tax has merit. If a company makes money, they generally do one of two things. They use the money to invest and grow the company which would create jobs. Or they pay out dividends to the owners of the company which are taxed when received by the owners. This would be a terrific idea to stimulate the economy and create an enormous number of jobs. A non C corp. would still have to pay taxes at the individual level. Currently, a C corp's owners are taxed twice. The first at the corporate level and the second time when dividends are received.

I'm an S corp and I'm not advocating for us. I don't employee thousands. Money made overseas has already been taxed, why tax it when coming here? Capital goes where it is treated well, Currently, our socialist are running them out of town. I was preparing my big statement when you chimed in. I doubt if countryroads can grasp our thoughts. Most socialist haven't a clue what really works. I would require a tax return to be filed for a prebate credit card that some advocate but why would they care how the govt is run if they don't pay anything at all for it?

 

[mneilmont]

The WSJ won't let you view it unless you sign up but I've read Trump's tax plan elsewhere and the store of Jesus feeding the masses with a few loaves and fish comes to mind, which is probably appropriate since Trump has a Messiah complex. Let everyone pay less tax and yet somehow we'll end up with more than enough money.

Does that sound like a page from Obamacare?
Remember, it was originally to cover everybody at a lower cost. I cried BS when I read that.

Trump plan would be feasible with a GDP growth rate of 5-6+%. More people participating creates more revenue. He is removing a bunch of potential participants with his level of exempt earnings so high, IMO.

 

[dave]

Agree, it seems he wants to give the middle class a tax break, basically no change for the wealthy and eliminate some deductions and exemptions while spending more on infrastructure and a national health insurance coverage plan. Seems like not enough money to go around. I do like the idea or spending more on infrastructure and universal health care (alone on their merit not counting for how it is paid for).

Now i have seen it all. A liberal complaining that a politician wants to spend more money than revenue allows.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Now i have seen it all. A liberal complaining that a politician wants to spend more money than revenue allows.

Ha ha, from a guy that thinks the last government shutdown was the fault of democrats. Dave, even Republicans admitted it was their idea and a very bad one. You are familiar with what Reagan did, right? LMAO.

 

[WVPATX]

Ha ha, from a guy that thinks the last government shutdown was the fault of democrats. Dave, even Republicans admitted it was their idea and a very bad one. You are familiar with what Reagan did, right? LMAO.

No one party can shut down government. It takes too parties. Neither party would compromise. Thus a shutdown.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

No one party can shut down government. It takes too parties. Neither party would compromise. Thus a shutdown.

Two? It was over the ACA. Don't you remember the interviews with Peter King, Mitch McConnelll, John Beohner and John McCain? No, it was one party.

 

[WVPATX]

Two? It was over the ACA. Don't you remember the interviews with Peter King, Mitch McConnelll, John Beohner and John McCain? No, it was one party.

It takes two. The GOP doesn't have the power to shut down the government. If the GOP passes a budget defunding Planned Parenthood and the Dems filibuster, who is shutting down the government?

 

[dave]

Ha ha, from a guy that thinks the last government shutdown was the fault of democrats. Dave, even Republicans admitted it was their idea and a very bad one. You are familiar with what Reagan did, right? LMAO.

I am not surprised at any of the retarded things you think or say so this doesnt surprise me either. Here is some advice. Stop believing everything you read on liberal blogs. You dont know what you are talking about and it makes you seem foolish. BtW the dems werr just as responsible for every govt shutdown as the republicans and independents. Stop looking at everything through partisan eyes.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I am not surprised at any of the retarded things you think or say so this doesnt surprise me either. Here is some advice. Stop believing everything you read on liberal blogs. You dont know what you are talking about and it makes you seem foolish. BtW the dems werr just as responsible for every govt shutdown as the republicans and independents. Stop looking at everything through partisan eyes.

Something you can't handle: facts.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

It takes two. The GOP doesn't have the power to shut down the government. If the GOP passes a budget defunding Planned Parenthood and the Dems filibuster, who is shutting down the government?

No it doesn't. If the GOP doesn't present a budget, the government shuts down. You really are a moron and not really intelligent enough to be posting on this board. It goes to the old saying, a stupid person really isn't embarrassed at their stupidity because they don't realize how stupid they are.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

It goes to the old saying, a stupid person really isn't embarrassed at their stupidity because they don't realize how stupid they are.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[WVPATX]

No it doesn't. If the GOP doesn't present a budget, the government shuts down. You really are a moron and not really intelligent enough to be posting on this board. It goes to the old saying, a stupid person really isn't embarrassed at their stupidity because they don't realize how stupid they are.

If a budget is filibustered, it is the Dems filibustering, not the GOP. It takes two. I would reply with a retort equal to yours, but I actually feel sorry for you.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

If a budget is filibustered, it is the Dems filibustering, not the GOP. It takes two. I would reply with a retort equal to yours, but I actually feel sorry for you.

No one is filibsutering at the present time. The Senate voted last night, 77-19, for a CR that goes through 11 December. The House must vote on it. If they don't vote on it or don't get enough votes to pass it, the government shuts down. See how simple that is?

 

[mneilmont]

No one is filibsutering at the present time. The Senate voted last night, 77-19, for a CR that goes through 11 December. The House must vote on it. If they don't vote on it or don't get enough votes to pass it, the government shuts down. See how simple that is?

The budget resolution only requires 51 votes according to Politico in response to Jack Lew statement that in the Senate 60 votes is required. 60 votes is not required for passage of budget resolution.

 

[WVPATX]

No one is filibsutering at the present time. The Senate voted last night, 77-19, for a CR that goes through 11 December. The House must vote on it. If they don't vote on it or don't get enough votes to pass it, the government shuts down. See how simple that is?

And the government won't get shut down. When a budget is passed (as Neil pointed out it requires just 51 votes) and if PP is defunded, Obama will veto. It takes two to shut down the government. This is not a hard concept. One party can't unilaterally shut down the government.

 

[WVPATX]

The budget resolution only requires 51 votes according to Politico in response to Jack Lew statement that in the Senate 60 votes is required. 60 votes is not required for passage of budget resolution.

Thanks for the correction. You're exactly right. Only 51 votes needed on budget bills.

 

[mneilmont]

Thanks for the correction. You're exactly right. Only 51 votes needed on budget bills.

I have been telling this Country kid and his sidekick. They have attempted to make lite of it, but it only exposes their stupidity, and I felt sorry for them and quit pointing it out until now.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

One party can't unilaterally shut down the government.

If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily shut down the government. The only thing they have to do is not have a House vote. I've shown you a video of McCain admitting in 2013 it was the REPUBLICAN party that shut down the government. You really should take some basic civics classes.

 

[WVPATX]

If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily shut down the government. The only thing they have to do is not have a House vote. I've shown you a video of McCain admitting in 2013 it was the REPUBLICAN party that shut down the government. You really should take some basic civics classes.

I'm sorry but you are really dense. No one party can shut down the government. The media and the people may blame one party over another, but it takes both parties to shut it down. If the GOP passes a budget defunding PP and Obama vetos, both sides will have shut it down. The GOP will likely get blamed, but it takes two. Always has always will.

It is unconstitutional to not pass a budget. Although Harry Reid didn't. He used CR's.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I'm sorry but you are really dense. No one party can shut down the government. The media and the people may blame one party over another, but it takes both parties to shut it down. If the GOP passes a budget defunding PP and Obama vetos, both sides will have shut it down. The GOP will likely get blamed, but it takes two. Always has always will.

It is unconstitutional to not pass a budget. Although Harry Reid didn't. He used CR's.

The Senate voted yesterday, 77-19 for a CR, that includes funding for PP. There is no threat of a veto at this point. The only thing that remains to be done is have a HOUSE vote on it. And please don't tell us it only takes 51 votes. LMAO. And you are calling me dense. I know very well how the Appropriations process works. [laughing]

 

[mneilmont]

If the Republicans wanted to, they could easily shut down the government. The only thing they have to do is not have a House vote. I've shown you a video of McCain admitting in 2013 it was the REPUBLICAN party that shut down the government. You really should take some basic civics classes.

McCain has prided himself in being a maverick. There are times he is right and times he is off base.

I believe the Repubs are willing to pass the budget with 51 votes. Now, will Obama and Harry go along or shut down the government because PP is not funded?
Remember how Clinton was trapped when he appeared before congress? Now, Repubs can set the same trap. Repubs pass budget resolution and Obama and Harry refuse to do their part until they can get PP funding. Because they refused to do their part, the Dems are going to get credit for not going along and shutting the govt down as a consequence.

See how that works to pass the buck?

 

[WVPATX]

The Senate voted yesterday, 77-19 for a CR, that includes funding for PP. There is no threat of a veto at this point. The only thing that remains to be done is have a HOUSE vote on it. And please don't tell us it only takes 51 votes. LMAO. And you are calling me dense. I know very well how the Appropriations process works. [laughing]

Clearly you don't if you think one party can shut down the government.

 

[op2]

The Economist thinks Donald Trump's tax plan is a "fantasy," so while I suspected it was BS upon reading it, I've had it confirmed by a source I trust now.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics

 

[WVPATX]

The Economist thinks Donald Trump's tax plan is a "fantasy," so while I suspected it was BS upon reading it, I've had it confirmed by a source I trust now.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/09/trumponomics

I can cite several economists that love the plan. If you're a leftist that loves high taxes and big government, you'll hate it. If you're a conservative that loves lower taxes and smaller government, you'll love it.

 

[op2]

I can cite several economists that love the plan. If you're a leftist that loves high taxes and big government, you'll hate it. If you're a conservative that loves lower taxes and smaller government, you'll love it.

You get nuttier and nuttier. Is The Economist a leftist magazine?

Just out of curiosity, go ahead and give me the names of the economists that love Trumps tax plan.

 

[WVPATX]

You get nuttier and nuttier. Is The Economist a leftist magazine?

Just out of curiosity, go ahead and give me the names of the economists that love Trumps tax plan.

Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore, just off the top of my head. BTW, The Economist endorsed Obama in 2012.

 

[op2]

Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore, just off the top of my head. BTW, The Economist endorsed Obama in 2012.

Great, two right wing economists on right wing websites saying Trump's plan is good. Nice. It doesn't bring in any money, but hey, what they heck.

So, is The Economist leftist or not? We both already know the answer to that but it'll be interesting to see how you try to wriggle out of it.

 

[WVPATX]

Great, two right wing economists on right wing websites saying Trump's plan is good. Nice. It doesn't bring in any money, but hey, what they heck.

So, is The Economist leftist or not? We both already know the answer to that but it'll be interesting to see how you try to wriggle out of it.

You must not be able to read. I posted previously that the Economist endorsed Obama over Romney. And as I previously posted, economists that love lower taxes and smaller government will like his plan. You really, really have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[op2]

You must not be able to read. I posted previously that the Economist endorsed Obama over Romney. And as I previously posted, economists that love lower taxes and smaller government will like his plan. You really, really have a reading comprehension problem.

I think it's you the one that has the reading comprehension problem. The question wasn't "Who did The Economist endorse in 2012?" the question is, "Is The Economist a leftist magazine?"

 

[WVPATX]

I think it's you the one that has the reading comprehension problem. The question wasn't "Who did The Economist endorse in 2012?" the question is, "Is The Economist a leftist magazine?"

The Economist tilts left and as an example, they endorsed Obama over a highly successful businessman and governor. One is a free market capitalist (Romney) and the other is a democratic socialist (similar to European heads of state). Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[op2]

The Economist tilts left and as an example, they endorsed Obama over a highly successful businessman and governor. One is a free market capitalist (Romney) and the other is a democratic socialist (similar to European heads of state). Seems pretty clear to me.

"The Economist tilts left." Now I've heard it all.

 

[WVPATX]

"The Economist tilts left." Now I've heard it all.

I've provided direct evidence to back up my claim. You asked for it and I gave it to you. Can you name a single right of center economic publication that endorsed Obama?