If you HAD to Vote for One...

So You HAVE to Vote for ONE of These Characters...

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 66 26.1%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 187 73.9%

  • Total voters
    253
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heck yeah. Hilda-beast is so corrupt it is gut wrenching. Anyone asking for Donald's tax returns should be asking questions about the Clinton foundation!

She has absolutely no moral ground to stand on, at all.

It boggles my mind people are so up in arms over Trump not releasing his personal taxes, but couldn't care any less about the Clinton Foundation shenanigans, Benghazi Shenanigans, email/server/breaking the law shenanigans, etc, etc, etc...

I feel like I am in the Twilight zone most of the time these days with what bothers and does not bother people...

The media plays things up or down and people just eat that shit up and go on grinning like the shit sandwich they've been feed is delicious and nutritious!

I've said it so many times and I'll say it again. This election comes down to one single thing to me and it should be important to everyone out there. SCOTUS justices that will be chosen by the next POTUS.

SCOTUS is pretty middle of the road, leaning left really now that Scalia is gone. Clinton will nominate the youngest most leftist progressive POS under the sun and SCOTUS will forever lean far left and that is a scary thought.

This should be front and center in the minds of anyone voting who likes our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Firearms specifically.

We cannot afford to have SCOTUS go full retard.

A few bad/progressive/anti-Constitution decisions could be the spark that ignite this powder keg of a Nation.

Would it boggle your mind to know many people have the capacity to care about BOTH the unprecedented non disclosure of the Donald's tax returns AND Hillary's shenanigans?

I can't speak to the rest of your post, much of it seems to violate our very strict rules here in off topic.
 
Would it boggle your mind to know many people have the capacity to care about BOTH the unprecedented non disclosure of the Donald's tax returns AND Hillary's shenanigans?

I can't speak to the rest of your post, much of it seems to violate our very strict rules here in off topic.

We are all guilt of "personal bias", some more than others. It is the reason why some people get a pass on certain things that some one else would be tarred & feathered over. Hence the reality, life ain't fair.....:hungry:
 
Well for one he's still being audited, but that's not the point. You are OK with people making "billions" not paying anything in taxes?

Her point wasnt that what he did was illegal, the point was the system is rigged to allow billionaires to get away with paying less in taxes than the average working person.

Warren Buffett has publicly stated that even after the last round of "tax hikes" on the wealthy he is still paying a lower rate than his secretary.

He may be paying a lower rate, but he's still paying more dollars into the system than she is.

What about the taxes generated by the investments made by those billionaires - capital gains, real estate, payroll, etc? Shouldn't we incentivize those people to continue making investments so they continue to generate taxable opportunities?
 
To get anything done, the right people gotta get greased. The bigger the project, the bigger the grease.

The "greaser" is stepping out and the "greasees" are telling him to get back in place and just keep the grease coming.


.
 
I think that you are mixing corporate taxes with personal unless DT is running his businesses as a sole proprietor. Given the type of businesses that is rolled up to his personal tax return & and previous corpbankrupty & losses, he is likely paying nothing at all. It is likely why he is audited so often as the biggest organised crime group (the government), is not getting their share.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
 
economic plan breakdown per business insider and WSJ from what i have been reading today, and before you poo poo these liberal rags, why don't you just post other reputable sources that say otherwise and let me read for myself???

All following quotes from:Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on US economic policy - Business Insider
"According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plan would incentivize investment by businesses and individuals, but the benefits would be offset unless there was a significant decrease in federal spending. Currently, Trump's plans indicate that he would increase spending.

"However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts," said the Tax Policy Center's report"

According to the Tax Policy Center, Clinton's plan would decrease investment from the top earners but would also significantly reduce the federal deficit.

"And the proposals would raise marginal tax rates on labor and capital, thus reducing incentives to work, save, and invest among high-income households," said the report. "The proposals would increase federal revenues by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years and would therefore reduce future deficits and slow, somewhat, the accumulation of public debt."

So the BI article shows Trumps proposals would INCREASE spending while increasing the national debt. And it shows Hillary INCREASE federal revenues, AND slowing the deficit.

All following quotes from here: Debate Cheat Sheet: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on the Economy - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The details behind this promise present one of the biggest challenges in Mr. Trump’s plan. If all businesses really only had to pay 15%, his tax plan would reduce revenue by $5.9 trillion over a decade instead of the $4.4 trillion the campaign has touted, according to the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. It’s clear that Mr. Trump would tax corporations at 15%, down from today’s 35%.

To see what Mrs. Clinton means by fair share, look at her plans. She would layer new tax increases on high-income households, targeting the very top of the U.S. income and wealth distribution. Her tax increases total $1.9 trillion over a decade, though the net revenue increase would be $1.5 trillion because of targeted tax cuts, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Again, under Trump, revenue is REDUCED. Under Hillary, net revenue increases 1.5 Trillion.

and one more interesting quote from the business insider (first) article:
Trump's plan would move all Americans into three tax brackets, down from the current seven. The top bracket for married joint filers making more than $225,000 a year would pay 33%; the $75,000-to-$225,000 bracket would pay 25%; and the under-$75,000 bracket would pay 12%. Right now, people who make under $75,000 pay a 15% rate, while the top bracket — made up of those making $466,950 — pays 39.6%

it is striking that in my mid 20s i already sit in the 25% bracket according to his proposed tax plan and if things work out and i keep excelling at getting raises i will be in his 33% bracket before i know it... i guess its true what they say about the only two things in life that are certain... (i already see how much goes out in taxes and it sucks to know that some people never or rarely ever pay taxes, i think everyone should pay in something)
 
Sure and if I give a dollar more that's more than a nickel.

My point is they could give their whole net worth, all of them and it won't fix the problem, and that's simply spending more than we take in. If I have $100 in bills a month but I spend $110 a month it won't take long to be in the same hole the US is in.

My example shows just having more income without cutting expenses won't fix the problem. It will only kick the proverbial can down the road.

Deficit vs debt. You're confusing the two.

The us debt is huge and isn't going to be paid back overnight, but the first step is getting out of the red.
 
And revenue can be quickly increased by scrapping NAFTA and slapping import duties on Canadian imports...no more free ride for the Canucks.
 
I don't disagree. I was just speaking to his billionaire's giving all of their money won't pay off the national debt point.

Yes professor, paying off the debt is akin to paying off the mortgage and eliminating the deficit is akin to not using your credit card.

The point made stands. The problem is spending, not taxes.
 
I am just curious if you have a source for your highlighted comments mainly about them (IRS) finding nothing? Given his real estate dealings (the type of business he is in) and the expenses & write offs/loss carry forwards, etc. that he is taking with the amount of income he is declaring annually to get him to zero fed tax, I would expect that he will always be audited and hope that is the case especially if he pays no fed tax.

I would also mention that you as a citizen of the USA have no idea if Trump is beholden to say Russia for his debts without his actual tax returns. He is already absorbing major campaign funding by 'renting" his "space" to the campaign, which means some of your money is going directly into his pockets. What makes you think that he would not benefit directly from national infrastructure rebuilding and inside knowledge of zoning changes , etc.. he has already admitted that he will use every advantage given to him to enrich himself.


I would say you share the same risk(s) with Trump (re-)negotiating international deals and his inability to "not take the bait" can lead the USA into much worse situations globally, maybe even war.
my bad. I don't. not that its not out there, but im not going to take the time to try and find it. I was just going off her history, and fact that she is a known liar and thief.

the whole Clinton foundation thing doesn't help her case much either...

Typically when you are audited and the IRS finds something they act on it. I have been audited and over paid my taxes. They sent me a check. Wesley Snipes and Willie Nelson didn't pay taxes and it made national headlines. Willie was able to sell off enough assets to avoid prison. The same can't be said for snipes. So when a big name person gets in trouble with the IRS I don't think it would get ignored by the press.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes, this. I had already said something similar. had they found anything, we would have known about it.

has been audited every year. or so I read. they find nothing, yet continue..

yes, the system is rigged. she benefits from it as much, if not more than he does. yet, will she ever admit to, or bring attention to that? doubtful.
with her, its even worse, as her income comes directly from the tax payers.



i doubt many people are willing to intentionally overpay on taxes, and not accept a refund...

:ybrick:

Thats exactly what she was trying to do. The entire point she was trying to make....

I dont think she was claiming anything about herself. YOU were the one that made that assertion. An assertion you haven't backed up with anything yet by the way.




What are you saying here? are you trying to imply she has been embezzling? Any facts to back that up? If you really want to know where her money came from you can check out her tax returns as she has released them.
see the bolded above. it in fact was YOU that said that was her point, not I.


I wasn't saying anything, I was asking a question. where did that money come from?
yeah, because her taxes would show illegal embezzlement.:rolleyes:
though again, there is the issue with their foundation.

and if you want to talk government spending... doesn't your federal government have you about 3x deeper in debt than I am? Lol
yes. why do you think there are so many of us *****ing about the government?

I think that you are mixing corporate taxes with personal unless DT is running his businesses as a sole proprietor. Given the type of businesses that is rolled up to his personal tax return & and previous corpbankrupty & losses, he is likely paying nothing at all. It is likely why he is audited so often as the biggest organised crime group (the government), is not getting their share.

Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
agreed.

though, its a waste of resources, again tax dollars. im not up on tax law, but I expect there is some type of statute of limitations, or something saying how many years back they can go. so IF they believe he is doing something illegal, audit him within that time frame, not EVERY year. especially when they haven't found anything.
its just another example of our government be inept, and incapable of actually governing.

Yes professor, paying off the debt is akin to paying off the mortgage and eliminating the deficit is akin to not using your credit card.

The point made stands. The problem is spending, not taxes.
well, taxes are a problem as well. if we weren't taxed so high, there would be many more jobs available, and likely higher paying jobs as well. but, the government takes such a huge chunk right off the top, there is a lot less to go around..




for those of you saying big corporations aren't paying ANY taxes, I find that VERY hard to believe. perhaps they aren't paying income tax, but there are a handful of other taxes I expect they are paying.

with so many other taxes, is it any wonder they do whatever they can, to not pay whatever taxes they can legally avoid? this is by DESIGN. and it is part of the problem. the greedy government has created this mess.
 
And revenue can be quickly increased by scrapping NAFTA and slapping import duties on Canadian imports...no more free ride for the Canucks.
Says the guy driving vehicles made in Mexico and Japan. We import more from you than any other country on earth. Yeah, we're really shitty neighbours. Countries like the US and Canada with very similar standards of living trade due to advantages we each have. You trade with countries like China and Mexico because they can produce the same things as you for pennies on the dollar. Don't blame us for big corps exporting your jobs to lower cost jurisdictions.
 
Last edited:
Says the guy driving vehicles made in Mexico and Japan. We import more from you than any other country on earth. Yeah, we're really shitty neighbours. Countries like the US and Canada with very similar standards of living trade due to advantages we each have. You trade with countries like China and Mexico because they can produce the same things as you for pennies on the dollar. Don't blame us for big corps exporting your jobs to lower cost jurisdictions.

A well thought out and logical argument suitable for a first year econ course. But get ready for reality to step in. The political winds south of your border are a changing.

In a trade war, Canada will suffer much quicker and harder than the US would. Your new PM Justin Bieber will fold faster than his 24 Sussex Drive maids on wash day. A new trade agreement will be struck; one that sticks it to Canada.

Bend over and get ready for a new reality.


.
 
A well thought out and logical argument suitable for a first year econ course. But get ready for reality to step in. The political winds south of your border are a changing.

In a trade war, Canada will suffer much quicker and harder than the US would. Your new PM Justin Bieber will fold faster than his 24 Sussex Drive maids on wash day. A new trade agreement will be struck; one that sticks it to Canada.

Bend over and get ready for a new reality.


.

I thought members were getting infractions and ban warnings for posts like these?
 
A well thought out and logical argument suitable for a first year econ course. But get ready for reality to step in. The political winds south of your border are a changing.

In a trade war, Canada will suffer much quicker and harder than the US would. Your new PM Justin Bieber will fold faster than his 24 Sussex Drive maids on wash day. A new trade agreement will be struck; one that sticks it to Canada.

Bend over and get ready for a new reality.


.
I'm no Trudeau fan but how does it make sense to stick it to the country that is your largest customer? What new reality are you referring to? The one where the US continues to go down the crapper and the penedulum continues to swing toward the east? The US has been gutted. Every part of that country has large areas of metropolitan area that look like the third world. Detroit, New York, South Florida, LA... it doesn't matter. You see it everywhere. The numbers just don't add up anymore. Protectionism is just a sign of decline of empire. Much like Britain during the New World. Not enough people and not enough money to keep the gig going. I don't like it any more than you might but the music is going to stop eventually. The ultra rich will continue to win. It doesn't matter. The rest of America, however, will continue to be left behind. Being angry and irrational isn't going to make it any better.
 
Canada is pretty insignificant and it wouldn't be singled out; it will just be added to the import tariff list.

Previous empires that declined didn't go quietly and there was a lot of collateral damage. Canada better root, root, root for the home team!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
278,316
Messages
3,554,120
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Trending content

Back
Top