September 25, 2016

Robby Mook pushes the theory that it would be "unfair" to Hillary Clinton for the debate moderator not to intervene on her behalf and correct Trump.

On "This Week" this morning:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You guys have been pushing that pretty hard, this idea of a double standard, and saying it’s up to the moderator to point out falsehoods. But the debate commission has been pretty clear that they think it’s the job of the moderator basically to get out of the way and just ask the questions.

MOOK: Well, all that -- again, all that we’re asking is that, if Donald Trump lies, that it’s pointed out. It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop while with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.
Stephanopoulos pushes back. Debate moderators are supposed to let the candidates debate each other. Mook's response is that Donald Trump is "special," and "this is a special circumstance, a special debate," and Hillary won't be getting her fair share of the time if she has to use it to correct Donald Trump.

Stephanopoulos also asks Mook about the "psychological warfare" of talking about inviting Mark Cuban and getting the return fire of Trump saying he'll "put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him" (and Flowers accepting). Mook tries to act as though Trump started it:
If this is what Donald Trump wants this debate to be about, that’s up to him. He is a reality TV star. He’s very experienced at providing television entertainment. The presidency is not about entertainment. It's about serious decisions...
Trump followed their lead.  Trump said it best back in May:
If she wants to go the low road, I'm fine with that. And if she wants to go the high road, which probably I would prefer, I would be fine with that.... I can handle the low road if I have to do it. I mean, we've had some low roads over the last few months.... I'm fine with it if we have to go that direction. Maybe you haven't noticed.
ADDED: Ironically, the argument that Trump is "special" is really an argument that Hillary is special: The rules don't apply to her. That fits a template her people should want to take care not to confirm.

157 comments:

EDH said...

Mook Translation: Hillary's debate prep ain't going so well.

Owen said...

If she's not comfortable with the terms of engagement, she can stay home. It would be no different than ignoring that unfair phone call from Benghazi.

campy said...

Robby is a mook.

MayBee said...

It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop while with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.

If she doesn't like how things are going, she could press her own giant reset button.

buwaya puti said...

Letting us all know that the fix is in wrt to the "moderators", they will be the stand in debaters.
This is how the media will justify it.

Laslo Spatula said...

Lester Holt saw what they did to Matt Lauer.

They're just reminding him of what they expect from him to avoid sharing the same fate.

Put that thumb on the scale, Lester...


I am The Replacement Laslo.

My name goes here. said...

Let's be honest.

For Hillary to win she has to:

Explain her email/classified information/document destruction/bleachbit coverup in a way that allows her to convince the viewers that they can trust her moving forward,

AND,

Explain how she will implement economic policies that are keeping with the current administration yet somehow more effective.

After 18 months of every media outlet describing him as a knuckle dragging racist mysogynist troglodyte incapable of coherent thought, for Trump to win the debate he has to:

Appear calm, dignified, in command of issues.

methinks Mook is trying to lower expectations.

Still I hope hope hope they made a contingency and told Trump to yell "Quick! Get a doctor!" immediately after Hillary collapses before he says, "See! I told you she wasn't well!"

MayBee said...

I'm fascinated by this idea that Trump is a uniquely awful candidate who cannot be treated like any other candidate because of his unique awfulness.

I can't believe he has gotten as far as he has, but the idea that he's some great threat (as opposed to the woman who sued to keep it illegal to release a movie about her and wants to get us back there) is completely unsupported.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Isn't this a terrible tactic for the Clinton campaign to be taking? As a woman I feel disgust that she is claiming to represent feminism while begging for protection. You want to be President. There are no moderators when you are talking to the leaders of Iran, China and Russia. Horrible.

Chuck said...

When has Trump ever taken "the high road"?

I'm quite serious. He has lots of high minded sayings and pablums, all of which are largely indefinite if not meaningless. (Make America Great Again, America First, etc.) But he's never "taken the high road" as a candidate. He's been attacking Obama personally, for as long as Obama has been in the presidency. Birth certificates, college transcripts, etc. He attacked each of his primary opponents in order, on almost purely personal grounds. Carson, then Bush, then, Rubio, then Kasich, then Cruz. All on personal grounds. Carson was a middling surgeon. Bush was low energy. Marco was "Little Marco" with supposed financial difficulties. Kasich was a lucky grafter who struck shale gas. Cruz was "Lyin' Ted" with a father who consorted(!) with Lee Harvey Oswald. Thanks to Trump's friends at the National Enquirer.

Purely personal, all of it.

I'd love to hear Trump talk about entitlement reform, EMTALA, the ACA, trade negotiations, climate change treaties, tax reform, tort reform, and two dozen other issues. He doesn't do that. In all honesty and in fairness to Trump, I don't think his core supporters care about issues.

JPS said...

"make sure that his lies are corrected,"

I'm no fan of Trump, but accepting the idea that his lies should require more correcting than hers requires, as Mook's candidate once put it, a willing suspension of disbelief.

I'm actually impressed with her ability to lie calmly, with a straight face, on easily checked questions. Her husband's ability to to do this is rooted in his confidence that people want to believe him. Hers is rooted in her confidence that her supporters who know will support her anyway, and that her opponents can be easily discredited in the eyes of the unconvinced.

PB said...

Just wait until someone sets off a strobe light. Will the big black guy come out and tell her to keep talking?

Birkel said...

...said Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.

buwaya puti said...

Chuck, see below, re the Salena Zito article in the Atlantic.
Quite a substantial talk re energy policy at that venue.
Which was not reported.
This sort of thing does not make it into the press/MSM, no matter who says it, doesnt matter if its Trump or anyone else. On unemployment rates, and other such substantial issues, complete omerta.
You seem to be a victim of this, but you dont have to be.
Blame the public for being to stupid to be addressed at this level, or the powers that be are particularly careful about their actual interests.

el polacko said...

mook's candidate is best known for lying and then lying about her lies and then lying about about the lies she told about her lies...but trump is the one who should be fact-checked ?

clint said...

"MayBee said...
I'm fascinated by this idea that Trump is a uniquely awful candidate who cannot be treated like any other candidate because of his unique awfulness.

I can't believe he has gotten as far as he has, but the idea that he's some great threat (as opposed to the woman who sued to keep it illegal to release a movie about her and wants to get us back there) is completely unsupported."

Technically, she didn't sue to keep it illegal -- the totally independent and nonpartisan FEC did it for her. She's just declared overturning that 5-4 decision (4-4 now, with a vacancy to fill) her top priority -- even if it requires a constitutional amendment.

But, yeah. I can't believe that isn't a bigger issue in the election.

Mary Beth said...

So the expectations may be working against you. Most voters think you’re going to win tomorrow night.

Do they now?

traditionalguy said...

Of course Hillary is special. When a Queen speaks, what she says becomes the law. When Trump speaks, no one needs to listen to what he said because he is a bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic Deplorable.

Hillary only needs to start her 2020 re-election campaign now.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck said...blabbity blah.

Why don't you change your name and come back as Shiloh or somebody? People would respond to you for a little while before they saw through it or just got bored.

Actually people will soon be able to tell, because every time they do respond to you, you will run screaming from the room unable to reply. At least if you follow your current pattern. But you'll get a few in.

But you, you're toast, Chuck; your current identity has nothing further to say on this board that anybody needs to pay any attention to.

How do you feel having apparently spent a deal of time creating an identity for yourself and having burned it down with all the commenters on the board?

Bill Peschel said...

Chuck, as soon as the reporters ask him, or look at his website, they'll get all the information they need.

Instead, they'll look at the rumors and innuendos and chat endless about this and that.

Remember, the New York Times devoted massive resources to Donald's relations with women, both personally and professionally, and in a front-page story found, well, nothing.

You can tell the mainstream media's panicking, because they're already blaming us rubes for reading the stories they create.

Deplorable.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Buwaya beware, you are not talking to an honest man, there. Of course your time is yours to waste.

bagoh20 said...

We just had two terms of a "special person" in office. I don't think the American Presidency is a place for "special people".

Sebastian said...

"Ironically, the argument that Trump is "special" is really an argument that Hillary is special: The rules don't apply to her. That fits a template her people should want to take care not to confirm." Why not? It's the premise of her whole campaign. She is special. She needs females to vote for her because she is female. And rules don't apply to her: never have, never will. Progs don't do irony.

Bob said...

Ann, You perform such a valuable service by the way you analyze what is going on. That is why I read you every day, and link to you almost that often. Thank you!

Chuck said...

buwaya puti said...
Chuck, see below, re the Salena Zito article in the Atlantic.
Quite a substantial talk re energy policy at that venue.


You know; about energy policy, I have no doubt that Trump's campaign could credibly put forth a good program that would contrast sharply with any Democrat's plan. They could get it, from House and Senate Republicans.

But so too could any Republican.

I'm not likely to give Trump any personal credit for a good and even credible energy plan, when every single Republican candidate could have done the same. Is it better than the alrernative? Yes. If that is the concession you want from me, you've got it. But half the country can recite from memory Trump's personal attacks, and we'd be hard-pressed to find 1% of the electorate who knew one thing about any Trump energy policy.

Bill Peschel said...

If Trump's advisers are really up on their game, they'll instruct him to simply repeat the truth about Hillary and her numerous, documented lies and prevarications.

Maguro said...

I guess this is just a way a signaling to other journolists what they should write after the debate. "Hillary was fantastic and Lester Holt did a great job correcting Trump's lies", etc etc. Persumably NBC and Hillary's team already have all their "Candy, get the transcript" slow burns scripted out.

Birkel said...

...wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.

In a binary election, Chuck talks about option C. Option C is not available. Chuck chooses Hillary.

David Begley said...

Robby Mook is a whining crybaby.

After Hillary loses, the Left will pin the loss on Mook. If Mook is smart he'll push back. Expect a major best seller from Mook unless he gets paid off.

YoungHegelian said...

You guys have been pushing that pretty hard, this idea of a double standard, and saying it’s up to the moderator to point out falsehoods.

MOOK: Well, all that -- again, all that we’re asking is that, if Donald Trump lies, that it’s pointed out. It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop while with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.


I think if I was in the press, I'd take Mook's words as a threat. Nice network ya got there. It'd be a real shame if Pres. Hillary's FCC lost yer broadcast license, wouldn't it? From what I hear the FCC's a real messy place & it could happen.

But, of course, the Democrats threaten & mistreat the press all the time, & like a captive with Stockholm syndrome, they just come back for more of the same.

I'm sorry, but it's Hillary's job to point out Trump's lies, just like it's his job to point out hers. And by the way, the pretense that HRC isn't the lyingest bitch on the planet is a boilerplate response among her supporters.

Chuck said...

Blogger Bill Peschel said...
Chuck, as soon as the reporters ask him, or look at his website, they'll get all the information they need.

Instead, they'll look at the rumors and innuendos and chat endless about this and that.


That is baloney. Trump owns the producers of half the shows on the Fox News Channel. If Trump said that he wanted a half an hour on prime time to talk about energy policy, they'd give it to him. But Trump doesn't want it, the audience doesn't want it, and so the producers don't want it.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page would do it; their readers would be interested; but many of you core Trump supporters have mostly contempt for the WSJ.

Birkel said...

"...core Trump supporters..."

...meaning people who do not want a President Hillary Clinton, unlike Chuck ...

rehajm said...

I'm no fan of Trump, but accepting the idea that his lies should require more correcting than hers requires, as Mook's candidate once put it, a willing suspension of disbelief.

This is what I thought as I read and parsed the Mook: he wants Trump's lies corrected. Not all lies, just his.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Just wait until someone sets off a strobe light. Will the big black guy come out and tell her to keep talking?
***********

As Barack Obama famously once said, "If they bring a knife, we bring a strobe".

buwaya puti said...

Chuck, thats because no Republican energy policy, or any other substantial matter, can make it into the press in such a way as to matter in this or any other election.
Consider Sarah Palins "drill, baby, drill". That was some position paper in back of that, and in fact it was what actually happened, no thanks to the administration she opposed.
Theres no better argument than reality.
But even Sarah Palin couldnt break through to the public.
If she couldnt, neither could any milquetoast Republican, on such matters.
Trump however does what seems to work, politically.
Anyway, you concede that Trumpian policy is likely to meet your approval.

Chuck said...

It is my vote, Birkel, you mendacious prick. You keep polluting these comments pages with throwaway lines about me being a Hillary supporter which is flatly untrue.

You want me to feel forced, to vote for Trump. You want me to have no choice. But I have a choice beyond Trump, which is to withhold my vote for President.

You Trumpkins need to ask for my vote. Beg for it. Sell me on it. I can't recall all the times that I've said, "You won me, with the 'lesser of two evils' argument." Hillary Clinton will never, ever get my vote. Still, you need to sell me on why I should cast a vote for Trump. You are not acknowledging the personal satisfaction I'd get from being able to say that I declined to vote for Trump.



Birkel said...

I ask you to please fuck off, Chuck.

Birkel said...

If I wanted more Chuck lies, I would ask Mook to ask the press to fact check them.

Just vote Hillary and be done.

Hagar said...

Running for election to be named "Leader of the Free World" - and your campaign manager is a man named Robby Mook who acts like the name sounds?

John said...

Maybee,

If you are referring to the button that Crooked Hilary gave Putin, IT WAS NOT A RESET BUTTON!

A red pushbutton on a yellow background is defined, legally, under federal law (let me know if you want the specific USC cite) as an "Emergency Stop" button. It can only legally be used as an emergency stop button.

You can ask any electrician, engineer or anyone who works with controls.

An emergency stop button kills all power and stops the system immediately. It does not allow the system to continue cycling to a home position as a normal stop switch does. Compare to the way your windshield wipers return to the down position when you turn them off (Normal stop) vs the way they stop in midstroke when you turn off the ignition switch.

When you think about it, the Emergency Stop metaphor works much better as a metaphor in both the Putin meeting and the debate.

John Henry

Darrell said...

Chuck is signing up more Trump voters than anyone else here. Good job! As the kids like to say today, KYA. Just ne neat about it for the sake of the first responders.

John said...

Just saw Rob Reiner A/K/A Meathead on some press show. My wife is watching but I overheard the word "lie", as in Trump lies, in some variation about a dozen times in about 2 minutes.

Battlespace preparation, I guess

John Henry

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If Hillary needs to have the big strong man moderator rescue her from the evil Trump in a 90 minute debate.....if she can't stand up for herself and counter Trump's talking points.....how in the world is she going to be able to stand up to Putin or to any other world leader. Does she expect to have moderators who will intervene to save the fair maiden?

What a joke. How demeaning to women in general to assume that poor widdle Hillary needs to have help because she is 'special'.

buwaya puti said...

It is a bit frustrating that the US political argument cannot take place on matters of substance. This is mainly because the venues for such are thoroughly corrupt and compromised by their monopoly ownership, this I understand. Still, it grates.

Even in the Philippines, a place with far lower standards of education (at least going by credentials), the political issues are substantial, are relevant, and contrasting positions are explained, even if the politicians do what they can to be in every side of everything. Even the provincial radio news there is more genuine and relevant than US network news.

Chuck said...

buwaya puti said...

...
Anyway, you concede that Trumpian policy is likely to meet your approval.


There are lots of policies that the Trump campaign has adopted from the standard Republican platform, all of which I support. Big deal. Credit, the Republican Party, of which I am already member.

There are a large number of Trump campaign pledges and promises that I regard as ridiculous.

There are even more Trump statements and personal history matters that I find inexcusable and intolerable. (Right along with the Clintons' inexcusable lies and intolerable behavior.)

Birkel said...

buwaya puti:

I agree completely. The process is corrupted as thoroughly as possible. We have Pravda and Izvestia working double time.

The long March through the institutions was complete a generation ago. The seed corn is what is left. Nobody is planting anew.

Hillary promises we devour what is left. Any other outcome cannot be worse.

Bruce Hayden said...

Stupid, stupid, stupid. You have a beta male trying to run interference between a female and an alpha male. Trump can't beat up Crooked Hillary, because that would be seen as bullying a woman. This would just give Trump justification for going alpha male on the cheating beta male moderator. Which means that he wins the debate. Who do we trust more to be in charge? The alpha male? Or the woman who tried to use a beta male to defend her? Who is more likely able to protect us from Islamic terrorism, the Russians, ChiComs, BLM riots, etc? I think that the Trump people were already prepping him to overreact to any attempts to Candy Crawley him. This just gives him ammunition.

Birkel said...

Chuck:

I like the false equivalence.

hombre said...

Chuck, when confronted with a choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream: "Chocolate is poison. It will make your pecker fall off, but not before it makes you crazy. Chocolate is also produced by evil people who are responsible for all of the atrocities in history undoubtedly from eating chocolate. I will die before I choose chocolate.

"Mind you, I'm not saying anyone should choose vanilla."

Birkel said...

I also really like Chuck using "inexcusable" and "intolerable"....

Or the exact same language Hillary used in her comments about police.

Hillary shill, much, Chuck?

Sofa King said...

It is a bit frustrating that the US political argument cannot take place on matters of substance. This is mainly because the venues for such are thoroughly corrupt and compromised by their monopoly ownership, this I understand. Still, it grates.

That's just how it is. As best I can tell, the whole concept of policy-wonk-as-qualification is a relatively modern invention, circa Woodrow Wilson I guess. It became popular in era of command economies, when everyone assumed that a technocrat would make the best national leader.

It is this very consensus that is expiring and providing the base of support for Trump. Teddy Roosevelt, for example, did not campaign on detailed policy proposals and policy papers, he campaigned on sheer force of personality and broad vision. That's what people cared about then and what we seem to be caring about more now, and maybe it's because ultimately those things matters more than what utopian plans your planners can spitball.

Unknown said...

I guess the moderators didn't correct the lie promoted by mood that trump began the Cuban affair.

Sydney said...

It is hard to imagine how Trump could do badly in the debate. He's already been portrayed as a buffoon by the media and other politicians - including those in his own party. How could they make him seem any worse than they already have? It's not like the audience will expect him to be brilliant.

Paco Wové said...

DBQ's point is what occurred to me first also. When the 3 a.m. call comes, there isn't going to be any moderator running interference for you.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

What other Hillary talking points did you absorb, Chuck?

Birkel said...

Sofa King:

Good point about technocrats. This goes back to Buckley's comment about the Boston phone book.

cubanbob said...

"I'd love to hear Trump talk about entitlement reform, EMTALA, the ACA, trade negotiations, climate change treaties, tax reform, tort reform, and two dozen other issues. He doesn't do that. In all honesty and in fairness to Trump, I don't think his core supporters care about issues."

Yo Chuck, you have to pay attention. Trumpy said he was going to lower income tax rates. On a bad year (and they have been for me throughout the Obama years) I pay at the 33%. He may not cut my rate but Hillary will definitely raise it. Trumpy said he will eliminate the death tax. As it stands if my wife and I were to die today my kids would be subject to the death tax on a portion of our estate. He may not eliminate the death tax but for damn sure she won't and would probably raise the percentage of the tax and possibly lower the threshold. Trump said he would repeal and replace ObamaCare. Maybe he won't but again there is no chance whatsoever Hillary will eliminate that destructive POS. Why would she? She is the mother of ObamaCare (HillaryCare 1994). As for the rest of your observation, please....Hillary going to make positive changes in these areas? What, she is going to morph into a Republican?

buwaya puti said...

I dont mean detailed position papers, Sofa King. The substantial points are easily made, in a mass media era. The facts are simple, such as large scale unemployment.
What we are dealing with here is the difference in arguments about the silver standard (Bryans "Cross of Gold"), which was substantial, vs arguments over outrage about some turn of phrase. Teddy Roosevelt campaigned on substance as well, against corruption and monopolies.
Lincoln-Douglas debate standards arent position-paper level, but at one time that was the level of political discourse. There arent a lot of college graduates these days capable of following that debate these days. There are few better signs of the collapse of public intelligence.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Mr. Mook should demand that Donald Trump be trussed up like Hannibal Lector so later on he can compromise to get moderator intervention which will seem reasonable by comparison.

Darrell said...

Hey! Couple days ago I suggested that Hillary be strapped to a tall metal cart like Hannibal Lecter when she requested a raised platform to equalize height.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Stupid, stupid, stupid. You have a beta male trying to run interference between a female and an alpha male."

Yes, it is a stupid strategy and I hope it blows up in Holt's face. All Trump has to do when Holt jumps in (or if Cuban tries to heckle from the sidelines) is say firmly," Excuse me, Mr. Holt, the American public is not tuned in tonight to see a debate between Lester Holt and Donald Trump, but a debate between the nominees for President. I believe Hillary Clinton can handle a debate on her own without interference from the media. Don't you, Mr. Holt?"

Mac McConnell said...

Guess the FBI and the DNC intervening on Hillary's behalf just wasn't enough.

buwaya puti said...

Among simple and substantial arguments - electric bills. The Democrats want US-wide rates to at least double, to New York and California levels. The current rate situation is easily found on the DOE site.
The blame lies mainly in local policies that coincide with EPA and DOE desiderata. Elsewhere there is pushback from less-corrupt public utilities commissions. But a compliant Supreme court, for one, could override them all.

Mac McConnell said...

Not to mention the Democrat human centipede known as the media.

Hagar said...

Both Roosevelts had a gift for picking the right man to do a job, giving him the means to do it, and then letting him do it in his own way.

Michael K said...

"Just wait until someone sets off a strobe light. Will the big black guy come out and tell her to keep talking?"

Thanks. I am still laughing even after scrolling past a bunch of "chuck" comments.

"There arent a lot of college graduates these days capable of following that debate these days. There are few better signs of the collapse of public intelligence."

Boy, is that true ! Read a newspaper from 1860 or 1870. Read the "1914 California Sixth Grade Reader," for example, and realize how far we have fallen.

Owen said...

Bruce Hayden: "Stupid, stupid, stupid..." Excellent point about the weakness in Clinton's tactic of hiding behind a beta male. Trump can pound on Lester Holt and still look like a gentleman (well, everything is relative). Her reliance on a weak man to do her dirty work is also going to undermine her main pitch that she is the Strong Woman who can face the world unflinchingly and solve complex urgent problems even after consuming a bowl of stroke meds, washed down with a liter of gin.

Birkel said...

Hagar:

So you think FDR wanted to strangle the economy? And he put Top Men in place for just that goal?

Hagar said...

I do not think the FBI "intervened on Hillary's behalf."
The FBI laid out the case quite clearly, and then found no grounds to prosecute, i.e., they were told there would be no prosecution and for Mr. Comey to go out and say so, never mind that prosecution is the Attorney General's business, not the FBI's.

chickelit said...

Chuck is really amping up Crack EmCee's 2012 tactics at Althouse. Motormouth nonstop against Trump like Crack did against Romney.

Hagar said...

FDR was no economist; he just went with the flow as it developed in the 1930s.
Though FDR never told his left hand what his right hand was doing, it should be noted that in 1932 he ran on a platform of reducing government and balancing the budget; it was Hoover who had all these radical liberal ideas of technocrats managing the government for the benefit of the common man, and FDR just took them over after he got into office.

Meeeea said...

Blogger Cacimbo Cacimbo said...
"Isn't this a terrible tactic for the Clinton campaign to be taking? As a woman I feel disgust that she is claiming to represent feminism while begging for protection. You want to be President. There are no moderators when you are talking to the leaders of Iran, China and Russia. Horrible."

As a woman, that was my first thought too! Thank you.

cubanbob said...

chickelit said...
Chuck is really amping up Crack EmCee's 2012 tactics at Althouse. Motormouth nonstop against Trump like Crack did against Romney.

9/25/16, 12:36 PM"

Crack was better at it and more entertaining.

Skeptical Voter said...

Hillary's. Idiom of what she wants to do to America's Deplorables involves a lot of them grabbing their ankles. She promises it won't hurt--much.

That said I don't doubt that Hillary has a lengthy and detailed energy plan, which no one has read. But it will involve putting coal miners out of work and shutting down coal fired electric power plants. Oh she will allow one or two of them to keep running so wealthy owners of Tesla cars can keep,their coal powered vehicles running.

I'm certain that Chuck can correct me, but frankly Chuckles I just don't give a damn.

Chuck said...

Yo Chuck, you have to pay attention. Trumpy said he was going to lower income tax rates. On a bad year (and they have been for me throughout the Obama years) I pay at the 33%. He may not cut my rate but Hillary will definitely raise it.
Okay; how's he going to balance the budget? Especially without entitlement reform? If Trump entrusts it all to Paul Ryan, that might be a good thing after all. No credit to Trump, other than that he is "Not Democrat."

Trumpy said he will eliminate the death tax. As it stands if my wife and I were to die today my kids would be subject to the death tax on a portion of our estate. He may not eliminate the death tax but for damn sure she won't and would probably raise the percentage of the tax and possibly lower the threshold.
So your joint estate exceeds $5 million? That is really the only effective threshold for the federal estate tax right now. And in fairness, the Dems are talking about raising estate taxes only on estates greater than, what, $45 million? Which they won't get as long as all you kids get out and do what you are supposed to do and vote for your congressional Republicans like Rob Portman and Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio and John McCain and Mark Kirk and Pat Toomey and Kelly Ayotte. A virtual Who's Who of Trump haters in the Senate. YOU NEED THEM. THEY ARE YOUR BEST HOPE AGAINST HILLARY!

Trump said he would repeal and replace ObamaCare. Maybe he won't but again there is no chance whatsoever Hillary will eliminate that destructive POS. Why would she? She is the mother of ObamaCare (HillaryCare 1994).
No; Trump will not repeal ObamaCare. An neither will the Senate, without 60 Republican votes. Which they won't have. So we agree. Reforming healthcare will be up to Congress, incrementally, as it should be.

As for the rest of your observation, please....Hillary going to make positive changes in these areas? What, she is going to morph into a Republican?
No, which is precisely why I don't like her and will never support her.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Agreed, Chuck. Trump cannot solve every problem so we must Vote Hillary.

n.n said...

It's not that the rules don't apply to her; they don't. It's that Trump is qualified to face the world, while Clinton will fail without affirmative action. The female chauvinists should be up in arms about this progressive paradox. Women, not so much; other than to note the trail of broken and aborted lives, hearts, bodies, and minds left by the female and male chauvinists.

Harold said...

Hagar said...
I do not think the FBI "intervened on Hillary's behalf."
The FBI laid out the case quite clearly, and then found no grounds to prosecute, i.e., they were told there would be no prosecution and for Mr. Comey to go out and say so, never mind that prosecution is the Attorney General's business, not the FBI's.


I'll correct that for you.

The FBI "intervened on Hillary's behalf."
The FBI laid out the case quite clearly, and then falsely stated they found no grounds to prosecute, because they had been told there would be no prosecution and for Mr. Comey to go out and lie about there being no grounds for prosecution, never mind that prosecution is the Attorney General's business, not the FBI's.

Chuck said...

That said I don't doubt that Hillary has a lengthy and detailed energy plan, which no one has read.
Oh, I expect that the Sierra Club, the NRDC, and Al Gore have read it.

But it will involve putting coal miners out of work and shutting down coal fired electric power plants. Oh she will allow one or two of them to keep running so wealthy owners of Tesla cars can keep,their coal powered vehicles running.
And don't forget Duke Energy, with its cozy funding of the DNC and their regulators' nonstop efforts to keep Duke profitable at all bureaucratic levels.

I'm certain that Chuck can correct me, but frankly Chuckles I just don't give a damn.

A) I am not going to correct you and B) I don't give a damn either.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So your joint estate exceeds $5 million? That is really the only effective threshold for the federal estate tax right now. And in fairness, the Dems are talking about raising estate taxes only on estates greater than, what, $45 million?

Chuck is correct. Hardly anyone will be subject to the estate taxes under our current system.

Actually the Unified Credit Exemption is 5 million EACH person and is adjusted for inflation to be 5.45 Million in 2016 "After years of congressional battles, the estate tax was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code, thanks to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, which was passed Jan. 1, 2013.

ATRA increased the amount of an estate that is not subject to taxation, known as the exemption, to $5 million. The exemption amount is indexed each year for inflation. For the 2015 tax year, the estate tax exemption is $5.43 million. It increases to $5.45 million for 2016."


Unlike when I began my financial planning advisory practice when the UCredit was only 500,000, when practically anyone with a farm, business or a house that they bought in Palo Alto in the 1960's for 25,000 would fall into the taxable estate category, today...pretty much only the really really wealthy are subject.

HOWEVER. People with this kind of wealth can use the services of a CFP, CPA, Attorney and structure their estates with trusts, gifts, corporations etc to minimize and avoid the estate tax. If you die without a trust or shelter for that exemption, you lose it. Avoiding or minimizing is really easy. That is what I did for a living.

Also HOWEVER.....the point of Hillary saying she will raise it and Trump saying he is against it is not based in the facts. It is emotional. Hillary is throwing red meat to her base that thinks the wealthy should be raped and their money taken from them. Trump is pandering to those who think it obscene that the Government is picking your pockets even beyond the grave.

They are both pandering to the clueless and economically challenged. So what? that is what politicians do.

Jupiter said...

Sofa King said...

"... As best I can tell, the whole concept of policy-wonk-as-qualification is a relatively modern invention, circa Woodrow Wilson I guess. It became popular in era of command economies, when everyone assumed that a technocrat would make the best national leader.

It is this very consensus that is expiring and providing the base of support for Trump."

Good point. But what many overlook here, is that different voters have very different perceptions of what makes a good President. Potential Hillary voters are mostly concerned with what is in it for them. Will the government pay for my birth control? My abortion? My Obamaphone? My idiotic grant proposal? My Section 8 apartment? My Climate Change Conference in Rio? My Billion-Dollar Alternative Energy Racket?

At the retail level, a lot of this goes back to the 19th Amendment. Apparently, a substantial fraction of American voters are more concerned with who pays for their birth control (Hint, why not that guy there between your knees?) than with how many terrorists the government settles in their neighborhood. Really, that young terrorist next door looks kind of dreamy. But I'm not ready to have his baby yet.

Chuck said...

About the FBI and Hillary:

Andrew McCarthy of the Trump-hating National Review Online has done a masterful job of deconstructing the Clinton lies in Servergate:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440370/why-did-obama-justice-department-grant-cheryl-mills-immunity

The very best work in taking down Mrs. Clinton has generally come from those sectors -- NRO, Weekly Standard, WSJ, Judicial Watch -- who have been so distant from Candidate Trump. Some might say now that the electoral work in taking down Mrs. Clinton will be done by Trump voters. I hope so; not that I wish to associate with it myself.

Birkel said...

Define "taking down" in the context of your preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, Chuck.

sunsong said...

I think the moderators should questions untruths, especially blatant ones. And not just in debates :-) There is too much lying in politics, imo, and we deserve better than that...

Fabi said...

McCarthy had a nice piece on Clinton -- no doubt -- but the National Review has expended far more effort attacking Trump than Hillary.

Birkel said...

Untruths like Hillary Clinton broke no laws with her homebrew server system that was easily compromised by foreign operatives, who discovered much classified information damaged American security?

Or untruths like Bill Clinton is a rapist and Hillary Clinton his enabler?

Or untruths like Hillary Clinton sold political favors from the State Department for donations to her fake charity that is a laundering operation?

MayBee said...

I think the moderators should questions untruths, especially blatant ones.

In debates, do the moderators interrupt the debaters with corrections?
Or is that what happens in an interview?

MayBee said...

If I were to look up the rules for High School or College debate competitions, would we see rules supporting the idea of the moderator interrupting with "fact checks"?

Michael K said...

"I think the moderators should questions untruths, especially blatant ones."

Why should they start now ? Did you watch Biden in both debates ? Nothing but lies. I was hoping Palin could point one out but she was not well prepared. As usual as Nicole Wallace was in charge of her presentation.

Birkel said...

Should the moderators question untruths like the lie that the moderators are fair and impartial?

MayBee said...

OF course, a debate moderator could ask a question such as,

"You both spoke in favor of the Iraq war, and then against it. When did you change your mind, and why?"

Isn't that one of the big lies Hillary is afraid Trump is telling? But she has her own baggage there.

Michael K said...

it was Hoover who had all these radical liberal ideas of technocrats managing the government for the benefit of the common man, and FDR just took them over after he got into office.

Both Hoover and Roosevelt were Progressives. LaFollate was a Republican.

Roosevelt was just a better liar. His excuse was that no one knew about economics. Hayek and von Mises came much later.

He was a pretty good war president and his economics prolonged the Depression but there is no excuse for not rejecting Keynes these days. Everyone should know by now but Keynes gave the key to the Treasury to politicians.

Then, of course, Johnson came along and put us on the track to anarchy.

MayBee said...

Suggested Fact Check from the 2012 debate:

"Actually, President Obama, the 80's did not call and want their foreign policy back. Putin is our leading geopolitical foe, and you better find a way to deal with him"

"Actually, President Obama, AlQaeda may be on the run but ISIS is running in to fill their void"

Matthew Sablan said...

Did anyone ask if the moderators would check Clinton if she lied about anything? Like with a cloth?

richard mcenroe said...

Just another example that the poor little thing just can't cut it without a biug strong man to help her.

Birkel said...

richard mcenroe:

Did you just imply that Lester Holt is big and strong?

Bad Lieutenant said...

chickelit said...
Chuck is really amping up Crack EmCee's 2012 tactics at Althouse. Motormouth nonstop against Trump like Crack did against Romney.
9/25/16, 12:36 PM

Has anyone ever seen Buck Buck Chuck and The Crack Emcee together?

buster said...

Really ironic, Hillary complaining about someone telling lies.

coupe said...

It seems to me that Mook wasted the whole interview on the accusation that Trump is a liar, and it's going to be unfair to their team.

I was just motioning with my hands that it was an intentional delay of game, and that the program director should move him back 5 yards (out of camera, out of view).

coupe said...

What is telling to me, is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid haven't said one good thing about Mrs Clinton, and in fact has ignored her campaign completely.

It's like she is in a different Party.

What's up with that?

Jupiter said...

sunsong said...
"I think the moderators should questions untruths, especially blatant ones. And not just in debates :-) There is too much lying in politics, imo, and we deserve better than that..."

I agree entirely. Some self-selected authoritative person who disagrees with your views should prevent you from expressing them, or at least shout "Liar" every time you go near your keyboard. I nominate Me. Shut up, sunsong! You inveterate liar! No reply needed.

coupe said...

Aha, on a CBS story: "But it should be “fair game” for either candidate—Clinton or Trump—to be challenged if they say something that’s not true Monday night, Kaine said."

So Mook and Kaine are merely on-message.

Chuck said...

coupe said...
What is telling to me, is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid haven't said one good thing about Mrs Clinton, and in fact has ignored her campaign completely.

It's like she is in a different Party.

What's up with that?


Pelosi didn't even endorse Clinton over Sanders until the California primary. Pelosi has her own caucus issues. And she is such a divisive figure (is that why you brought her up?), her assistance is marginal. California's electoral votes are not in doubt. Outside of San Francisco and D.C., where is Pelosi a valued political star?

Harry Reid is done in politics. He is retiring. And he looks like he was on the wrong end of a drunken New Year's Eve brawl. Which is probably what happened to him. In any event, who would want him around their campaign?

Dan Hossley said...

Hillary is hoping that Lester Holt cancels at the last minute and James Comey voluteers to host the debate. She's use to special treatment.

eddie willers said...

I'm beginning to believe Chuck is Gerald Broflovski.

Martin said...

Better to leave them at it, but the idea that Trump is less trustworthy than Clinton is hilarious.

tcrosse said...

Harry Reid may be retiring from the US Senate, but I doubt he is retiring from wheeling, dealing, and hanky-panky. He did plenty to help HRC in the primaries when it looked like Bernie had a shot. Because he is heavily invested in seeing that his successor is a Democrat we can expect lots of GOTV action from the considerable ground force he still commands. And he has been saying plenty of very nasty things about Trump. The nicest possible thing one could say about HRC without provoking laughter is that she is not Trump.

Michael McClain said...

So, I guess the translations is, "Hey, she's a girl and needs help against the mean male chauvinist."

cubanbob said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
So your joint estate exceeds $5 million? That is really the only effective threshold for the federal estate tax right now. And in fairness, the Dems are talking about raising estate taxes only on estates greater than, what, $45 million?

Chuck is correct. Hardly anyone will be subject to the estate taxes under our current system.

Actually the Unified Credit Exemption is 5 million EACH person and is adjusted for inflation to be 5.45 Million in 2016 "After years of congressional battles, the estate tax was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code, thanks to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, which was passed Jan. 1, 2013.

ATRA increased the amount of an estate that is not subject to taxation, known as the exemption, to $5 million. The exemption amount is indexed each year for inflation. For the 2015 tax year, the estate tax exemption is $5.43 million. It increases to $5.45 million for 2016.""

Not quite as you say. A married couple can each gift up to the $5mm while they are alive. The other measures you mentioned are complex and costly and don't guarantee avoidance of the tax. Also while the exemption is per person with a married couple having a total of 10mm that presumes the assets are equally divided which isn't necessarily so. One spouse can have an estate value of 4mm and the other 6mm. Then there is the obscenity of dead people paying taxes on money they already paid taxes on. The heirs don't pay the tax, the estates pay the tax plus the professional fees before the residual goes to the heirs. An honest taxation would be a capital gains tax with inflation adjustment when the inherited asset (real-estate or businesses) is sold and in the case of bonds and equities again a capital gains tax on the sale (with inflation adjustment, why should the government benefit from debasing the currency?) when the sale is made and the income it produces taxed as it otherwise would be. Chuck is correct? I see, as long as you and yours don't get screwed it's OK. If it's morally defensible to tax an estate, then what difference does the size make? Why any exemption? As a practical matter if one adds up all the professional fees and and insurance premiums spent to mitigate the tax it comes out to pretty much what the tax will be. Taxes should be to raise revenue for government, not for social engineering. Capital would be far better allocated without having to spend fortunes on economically useless endeavors such as tax and estate lawyers and accountants and making Warren Buffett even richer by having to buy insurance policies just to pay taxes for what should never have been taxed to begin with.

Chuck do learn the first lesson about holes, when you are in one, stop digging. Your rebuttals are nonsensical. No Republican is ever going to balance the budget. Ever. No Democrat will ever balance the budget. Ever. The difference is only that Republicans will borrow and spend (albeit probably spend a tad less than Democrats) and Democrats will tax, borrow and spend. Given the two choices and there are no other choices, better to keep more money in my pocket which benefits my family than giving it to the government to do other people favors with my money.

Chuck said...

cubanbob said...
...
Chuck do learn the first lesson about holes, when you are in one, stop digging. Your rebuttals are nonsensical. No Republican is ever going to balance the budget. Ever. No Democrat will ever balance the budget. Ever. The difference is only that Republicans will borrow and spend (albeit probably spend a tad less than Democrats) and Democrats will tax, borrow and spend. Given the two choices and there are no other choices, better to keep more money in my pocket which benefits my family than giving it to the government to do other people favors with my money.


So you are voting for the Johnson/Weld Libertarian ticket? Surely you aren't supporting "Republican" Donald Trump and that party!

Or are you supporting Trump, as something that is wholly NOT Republican at all? In which case, good luck with your cause in congress where you had better pick sides.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Mkay Cuban you want to talk taxes and estate planning. As I said, hardly anyone today will pay the estate tax due to the large INDIVIDUAL Unified Credit Exemption. Since there isn't much need for the ordinary person to do estate planning, that business line has pretty much died out. There is not much need for estate planning for estate tax purposes. However, for other reasons there is still a need.

We are on the same page with the misuse of taxation for social engineering and to punish people who have been successful. But, you are misinformed or not comprehending of some of the issues.

1. Some states are community property and unless the assets were inherited by one or the other of the spouses or otherwise acquired before the marriage and are titled as sole and separate property then they are considered equally owned. If you die and your wife inherits the property, there are not any taxes because it is a spousal situation. However, if you die, without any planning, and your wife inherits the estate then your personal exemption is as if it never happened. Your 5 mill exemption is not used and your wife only gets her exemption. To use the exemption before death and still retain your assets, most people establish an A/B Trust which is not really all that expensive to establish. Assets in the B (bypass) trust are inherited without estate taxation because it uses the exemption of one of the dead spouses and the remainder trust can use the exemption of the surviving spouse.

It sounds complicated, but it really isn't.

2.The gifting of money and assets does reduce your taxable estate. It also reduces the assets that remain in your estate to be used by the surviving spouse. The other BIG issue of gifting assets (not money) to your children versus them inheriting is that a gifted asset retains the owners original cost basis whereas an inherited asset (for now) gets a step up in value. This is important if the person wants to or needs to sell the asset.

3. So...if you gift 1000 shares of stock that you bought for $10 each the cost basis is $10,000. If the stock is worth $90 a share and they want to sell, the market value is 90,000. Capital gains are the realized price less the cost basis. Capital gains on $80,000. In an inherited scenario the same stock same cost basis. Inherited when the price of the stock was $85 ($85,000 is the NEW cost basis) and then sold at $90 ($90,000) capital gains on the difference of $5000.

4. Then there are all sorts of charitable trusts that not only reduce the estate but give some current tax benefits as well as possible income ...lead trusts CLTs and remainder trusts CRTs. In annuity form or in unit trust form.

People in the nosebleed levels of 10 million plus estates for a married couple don't worry about the cost. They are more concerned with not paying excess taxes and with ensuring that their assets go to their family or whomever they designate.

Of course....the majority of us, will never have to worry about it, unless the government decides to change the exemption levels again.

Fabi said...

Second rule of holes: stop digging, Chuck.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Point # 3 that would be capital gains taxes at 15% on $5000 = $750 or 15% of $80,000 = $12,000.

Hmmmm...which would be better?

amielalune said...

Professor, why do you allow Chuck and the knuckleheads who waste their time responding to him dominate this site these days?

It's your playground, not his, and although it's easy to bypass "Chuck", I waste a lot of time beginning to read the assorted responses and insults to him until I see what they are. Boring.

Chuck said...

tcrosse said...
Harry Reid may be retiring from the US Senate, but I doubt he is retiring from wheeling, dealing, and hanky-panky. He did plenty to help HRC in the primaries when it looked like Bernie had a shot. Because he is heavily invested in seeing that his successor is a Democrat we can expect lots of GOTV action from the considerable ground force he still commands. And he has been saying plenty of very nasty things about Trump. The nicest possible thing one could say about HRC without provoking laughter is that she is not Trump.


No, you have mixed everything up.

There is dealing, then there is campaigning.

OF COURSE Harry Reid helped Hillary in the Nevada Caucus. He rigged the Culinary Workers union for her. Nobody ever doubts that kind of shit. He handed her the Caucus result. Which was very much in doubt before then.

But the question posed above was about visible campaigning. And Reid has been absent from that. Reid didn't even ENDORSE Hillary until after his state's caucus. And that is as I said; Reid is such political poison outside of hard core Dem interest groups, he's a campaign nullity.

Birkel said...

DBQ:

As Chuck will surely tell you, the better option is to assume a different state of affairs obtains, causing the binary choice you present at 4:26 PM to be false. He will legally, therefore, pay less than 15% tax.

That is how Chuck circles the square and justifies his support of Hillary Clinton.

Jupiter said...

cubanbob said...

"No Republican is ever going to balance the budget. Ever. No Democrat will ever balance the budget. Ever. The difference is only that Republicans will borrow and spend (albeit probably spend a tad less than Democrats) and Democrats will tax, borrow and spend."

It has apparently dawned upon the Regime that it is not necessary to tax in order to spend. This spending is effectively a tax on all assets denominated in dollars, and distorts the economic choices made by producers to roughly the same extent as would a tax. But it has the immense political advantage that, while those who receive the Regime's largesse are deeply grateful, its victims (often the same people) may be dimly aware of the harm done them, but seldom blame the real culprits. Indeed, the culprits are difficult to identify, for no one has done anything illegal.

Chuck said...

amielalune said...
Professor, why do you allow Chuck and the knuckleheads who waste their time responding to him dominate this site these days?

It's your playground, not his, and although it's easy to bypass "Chuck", I waste a lot of time beginning to read the assorted responses and insults to him until I see what they are. Boring.


Fewer one-line personal attacks on me would help a lot. Take away all of the pointless allegations that I am for Hillary, and there isn't much left from them.

Kevin said...

Isn't the issue twofold? First, Hillary doesn't want to use her time to refute his "lies", thus robbing her of her own arguments while giving his twice the airtime? And second, because she lies so much, who would believe her statements that these are actually lies at all?

She has no standing as the arbiter of truth.

cubanbob said...

Chuck I'm not you. I don't waste my time in fantasy voting. I vote the lesser of the two real evils, the one that can actually get elected. Show me a barely plausible scenario where Johnson/Weld could win that doesn't require prodigious of drugs and alcohol and I'll consider it. In the meantime I'll vote for the one who all else being equal will help me keep more of my money. In the meantime you are doing a hell of a job shilling for Hillary while claiming to be a Republican. Please do tell me which other Republican that was running in the primaries was going to balance the budget? I expect Congressional Republicans to do their job if they retain control of Congress and keep Trump in check when it comes spending. They seem to be better at controlling spending when a Democrat is in the White House then when a real (?) Republican is in the White House so under Trump since as you say he isn't a real Republican one can expect a slowdown in spending and no rise in taxation. That is the best I can realistically hope for and if he wins that actually may come to pass. Not with Hillary. Especially if she wins and the Democrats take effective control of Congress. Try living in the real world.

Chuck said...

cubanbob, the real world is a nasty, complicated place where lots of disparate groups and millions of people assert their own interests.

There are two political parties in Washington. Each with lots of subgroups. You should pick one. But you don't have to. Do whatever you wish.

And I assure you that I don't do any fantasy voting. I'll either vote for Trump, if it suits me, or I will withhold my vote just to make myself feel better.

Birkel said...

Hillary will be unconstrained by truth. She will be abetted by the administrative agencies. She will control the agenda with the press.

All the other arguing is about rearranging deck chairs on a sunken ship of state.

Robert Fulton said...

I could figure this whole thing out if I had a magic box that would tell me how someone (say a commenter here) was actually planning to vote. I have come to believe that many, many folks appearing on TV shows, writing in various places, commenting on blogs, etc. are merely putting up a show to point to when challenged by progressive bosses, friends, etc. This would include lying to pollsters (one never knows who will have access to that information with ID and all) and anyone else who inquires as to how one is going to vote.

If you have Bill Maher's latest show available you can watch a panel member who is identified as a Republican who lives in California look directly into the camera and claim that he will never, ever vote for Trump or Hillary, but he doesn't know for whom he will actually vote. Good answer. That way he doesn't have to explain why he is voting for someone and defend anything. Like Scott Adams, he is now safe to live in California and keep his job, etc. How many are like him? How will they actually vote? We don't know.

Personally, I think if the Republicans were running Hillary a great many Republican voters would be saying they refuse to vote for such a candidate. Many Republicans (myself included) refused to vote for "read my lips" Bush on principle. Presumably, they would also refuse to vote for Hillary. Democrats do not stand on principles that apply directly to their candidates and often vote for crooks who "stand for" good things. How many Democrats can you name who are refusing to vote for Hillary because she is... (who she is)? Shouldn't there be some?

rhhardin said...

Everything is unfair to women, and men are offered the opportunity to fix it.

It's a mating ritual gone slightly wrong.

Men put up with it because that's their role.

rhhardin said...

The truth goes halfway around the world while the lies stay right here at home.

Paco Wové said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Robert Fulton:
I suspect a great many Democrats will refrain from voting for Hillary Clinton. Rather, they will vote for the Democrat. Party loyalty is a frightening thing.

Chuck said...

Robert Fulton:

You touch on an interesting point.

How many left-wing talk radio programs are there, where the hosts are assailing "the mainstream Democratic Party"? Or the "Democratic Establishment"?
Cf., Limbaugh, Rush.
How many MSNBC hosts are telling their audience, "I'm not a Democrat; I'm a registered socialist/Green/whatever"?
Cf., Hannity, Sean.

walter said...

I guess it's not "mansplaining" if man to man.
Time is running out, folks!
Hil needs $$:
"Chip in $1 to become an official Debate Donor and get a free sticker!"

machine said...

“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has. Over and over, independent researchers have examined what the Republican nominee says and concluded it was not the truth — but ‘pants on fire’ (PolitiFact) or ‘four Pinocchios’ (Washington Post Fact Checker).”

cubanbob said...

DBQ it isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, I do. I have spent plenty of money on tax lawyers and accountants setting up trusts as mentioned and GRATS as well. It is expensive to say the least just to minimize what shouldn't be taxed to begin with. It's a wealth tax. I also understand the step up in valuation for the estate tax but let's be clear that is for valuation at the time of death but the government wants it's money fairly quickly and doesn't allow you to defer the tax indefinitely like one can with a capital gains tax while alive by not realizing the gain. As for your illustration on married couples that is true for those who married early, acquired wealth and never divorced. However that isn't always the case if both of the spouses had acquired wealth independent of each other and had already set up distribution of their premarital assets to their heirs prior to the current marriage and joint acquisition of wealth. By the way in your cap gains example the tax isn't adjusted for inflation so the government still gets it's ill gotten gain.

"Jupiter said...
cubanbob said...

"No Republican is ever going to balance the budget. Ever. No Democrat will ever balance the budget. Ever. The difference is only that Republicans will borrow and spend (albeit probably spend a tad less than Democrats) and Democrats will tax, borrow and spend."

It has apparently dawned upon the Regime that it is not necessary to tax in order to spend. This spending is effectively a tax on all assets denominated in dollars, and distorts the economic choices made by producers to roughly the same extent as would a tax. But it has the immense political advantage that, while those who receive the Regime's largesse are deeply grateful, its victims (often the same people) may be dimly aware of the harm done them, but seldom blame the real culprits. Indeed, the culprits are difficult to identify, for no one has done anything illegal."

Pray and pray three times a day with all your heart and all you might that the US economy doesn't go below it's current percent of the world's GDP because when it does (may such a thing never happen) the USD will lose it's world reserve status. And when that happens government fiscal policy will have to adjust to fiscal realities. Higher taxes on everyone and reduced spending and having to earn funds in a world reserve currency.

"Take away all of the pointless allegations that I am for Hillary, and there isn't much left from them." Chuck you hide you non-support for Hillary all so well.

Fabi said...

Politifact and WaPo are independent researchers according to machine. Lulz

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Cubanbob, we are absolutely on the same page in that the Government should not be taxing estates and wealth. Income...maybe. But to go after your lifetime of accumulated wealth, which likely has already been taxed is obscene. That was part of my job to make sure that it didn't happen or to minimize that.

I also understand the step up in valuation for the estate tax but let's be clear that is for valuation at the time of death but the government wants it's money fairly quickly and doesn't allow you to defer the tax indefinitely like one can with a capital gains tax while alive by not realizing the gain.

No. You do not have to sell your inherited asset at anytime. You can hold it until YOUR death and pass it on again. As long as there are no realized gains, there is not any tax. The advantage of highly appreciated assets as being inherited as opposed to gifting is self evident when we are subject to capital gains taxes.

BTW: Trump wanting to lower the cap gains will be a big boon to the economy and increase the velocity of money as people who wouldn't sell at 15 to 20% gains might consider it at 8%. There are billions of dollars in gains stagnating in the stock market and in appreciated real estate assets that would be put back into circulation.

The Trump plan to also lower the corporate and business taxes is another thing that will juice the economy. Not immediately like putting your gas pedal to the floor in your car but more like a train taking off slowly and building a huge momentum. Money will be brought back from overseas. Investing into business will become more desirable.

Your scenario of the couple who has been divorced and bringing disparate assets to the marriage and possibly with children who come from different marriages just screams for more professional planning.

In the good old days it was super easy to reach a taxable estate of over a million dollars with a mere $500,000 exemption. A small business owner. A Rancher with tracts of land. If you had bought a house in Palo Alto in the 1970's even, at about $45,000....today that house is worth MILLIONS. Back the the day, I had many clients who were multi millionaires with the good fortune to have bought some real estate in those types of markets and who didn't want to sell because of the capital gains (on non personal residence.) We put those highly appreciated assets into the B (Bypass) trust for the children who then could either keep or sell at a highly adjusted cost basis and reduce the taxes.

Velocity of money is a huge concept that the Democrats do not understand. When people get to keep more of their money, spend their money the turn over of a dollar in the economy is such a positive thing and is especially beneficial in local areas.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Also..>I believe there is still the GST The GST tax was designed to close a loophole in the estate tax. Normally, grandparents would leave their estates to their children, incurring estate taxes. Then the children would pass on the estates to the grandchildren, incurring estate taxes again. Wealthy individuals realized they could leave their estates to their grandchildren directly and avoid one set of estate taxes. Congress established the GST tax to prevent this by taxing transfers to related individuals more than one generation away and to unrelated individuals more than 37.5 years younger I think.

exiledonmainstreet said...

“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has. Over and over, independent researchers have examined what the Republican nominee says and concluded it was not the truth — but ‘pants on fire’ (PolitiFact) or ‘four Pinocchios’ (Washington Post Fact Checker).”

Oh, yeah, Politifacts and the WaPo are surely completely unbiased and objective and are not interested in bailing Hillary's fat ass out of trouble at all.

cubanbob said...

machine said...
“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has. Over and over, independent researchers have examined what the Republican nominee says and concluded it was not the truth — but ‘pants on fire’ (PolitiFact) or ‘four Pinocchios’ (Washington Post Fact Checker).”

9/25/16, 5:04 PM"

Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate have credible evidence against them of graft, perjury, numerous other criminal violations and committed treason.And that ain't Trump. So much for the house organ fact checkers.

cubanbob said...

DBQ: "I also understand the step up in valuation for the estate tax but let's be clear that is for valuation at the time of death but the government wants it's money fairly quickly and doesn't allow you to defer the tax indefinitely like one can with a capital gains tax while alive by not realizing the gain.

No. You do not have to sell your inherited asset at anytime. You can hold it until YOUR death and pass it on again. As long as there are no realized gains, there is not any tax. The advantage of highly appreciated assets as being inherited as opposed to gifting is self evident when we are subject to capital gains taxes."

You missed my point. I don't have to pay from what I inherit from my wife or vice-versa (that is what marital trusts are for among other things)but my kids do when we both croak. Now if they happen to have enough cash to pay the tax on their taxable inheritance good on them. Otherwise they will have to find a revenue source to fund the taxes even if the gain isn't realized. As for GST's, yes but only if you transfer the assets (and control to a large degree) while you are alive. Now if you are eighty that is probably a great idea. Unless you are extraordinarily wealthy and can afford to gift all these assets while you are still twenty or more years from dropping dead otherwise giving away the assets can become a problem if you need the income from the assets or need to sell the assets to raise funds. But all this planning is great for the professionals. The bottom line is that spending rather substantial sums of money can defer estate taxes to a degree but kicking the can down the road does not avoid the day of reckoning. And the money spent on tax avoidance would be better for the economy if invested in the markets than spent on regulatory compliance and avoidance. As for income taxes, who likes them? Still, on balance as bad as they are they are at least a pay as you go form of taxation. Unlike property taxes which are not contingent on any one given year's earnings. If not for prop 13 California wouldn't have much of a middle-class left. And as for Florida it's version of prop 13 is a godsend.

As much as I like Trump's fiscal ideas (although he didn't mention a one time wealth tax) I doubt if elected he will get them through.

wildswan said...

I can only say that with Hillary asking for a step-stool to be Trump's height and asking the moderator to do her job as a debater - her team can't be confident. I think Holt is going to intervene, maybe more than once, and it may be a disaster for Hillary. It depends on how it plays but referee cheating, as an issue on its own, may cause her to lose the debate.

tim in vermont said...

There is too much lying in politics, imo, and we deserve better than that... - Sunsong

Please note that Sunsong is voting for Hillary, whose lies will not be questioned, no matter how blatant.

Jon Ericson said...

referee cheating

I'll be looking out for that.

SukieTawdry said...

And who should be responsible for correcting Hillary's lies?

Jon Ericson said...

Milo?
On an elephant?
In front of "Good Morning America"?

Jon Ericson said...

Ha!

I amuse myself.

:)

Gretchen said...

I think they are terrified, and think they need Hillary to tag team with Holt. Trump preferred no moderator. I don't think Lincoln/douglas had a moderator. I think there should be someone with a timer and automatic mic cut off, but no mic them selves. Check both candidates for ear pearls.

That's how HS students do it.

Michael K said...

“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has

machine is an expert on lies as most hard left commenters are.

Hillary is your candidate because she is such an expert on lies.

damikesc said...

It’s unfair to ask for Hillary both to play traffic cop while with Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.

But it's totally fair for Trump to have to do that.

"Women aren't as capable as men, says Clinton campaign official"

Remember, always: One of the two candidates is good friends with and deeply trusts both Sidney Blumenthal AND David Brock. Who your friends are, especially when you have few, does speak something about you.

I'm fascinated by this idea that Trump is a uniquely awful candidate who cannot be treated like any other candidate because of his unique awfulness.

And now that the press has ADMITTED that they are out to "get" him, his arguments about the press work far better.

I'd love to hear Trump talk about entitlement reform, EMTALA, the ACA, trade negotiations, climate change treaties, tax reform, tort reform, and two dozen other issues. He doesn't do that. In all honesty and in fairness to Trump, I don't think his core supporters care about issues.

In his defense, he's given multiple speeches on those kinds of issues.

Not his fault the press decides to ignore them.

I'm not likely to give Trump any personal credit for a good and even credible energy plan

So...

"Why can't Trump give a good plan for anything?"
"Here's one for energy, for example"
"Well, ANYBODY could do that, so that doesn't count"

So you think FDR wanted to strangle the economy? And he put Top Men in place for just that goal?

FDR was an economic idiot (just read up on his manipulation of gold prices) and he wanted more and more control of the economy, as did his people, many of whom were quite fascinated by what the Soviets were doing.

Let's also remember that Bill ran on a platform of cutting taxes and "changed his mind" in December...you know, before he was even sworn in.

I do not think the FBI "intervened on Hillary's behalf."
The FBI laid out the case quite clearly, and then found no grounds to prosecute, i.e., they were told there would be no prosecution and for Mr. Comey to go out and say so, never mind that prosecution is the Attorney General's business, not the FBI's.


They gave Cheryl Mills immunity and then let her represent Hillary. Nobody does that.
They gave immunity to all of the IT guys involved.

No, Comey had no plans of doing an honest investigation.

So you are voting for the Johnson/Weld Libertarian ticket? Surely you aren't supporting "Republican" Donald Trump and that party!

A clown and a Republican to the left of Trump? I'll pass. If Rand Paul was the nominee, I'd happily vote for him. But he ain't.

Curious George said...

Did Lester Holt meet Bill Clinton and discuss "their grandkids?"

AprilApple said...

Democrats live to drain as much private wealth from Americans as possible.

damikesc said...

“Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has. Over and over, independent researchers have examined what the Republican nominee says and concluded it was not the truth — but ‘pants on fire’ (PolitiFact) or ‘four Pinocchios’ (Washington Post Fact Checker).”

My, the Clinton campaign released this precise talking point this weekend and the press jumped all over it and repeated it constantly. As did their hangers-on. Sounds like a total coincidence. Also had a conference call demanding the press attack Trump's "lies".

Nice to see the press play along so well.

It is always amusing seeing a woman who hasn't told the truth on anything this entire campaign calling others "liars" and then having the Dem operatives there run with it.

Bruce Hayden said...

Late here, but a couple of tax items. One of the keys right now for tax planning for the upper middle class is, as DBQ suggests A/B trusts, which essentially use the unlimited marital deduction to move anything over the taxable minimum to the no no-deceased marriage partner. Thus, if spouse A dies with a $7 million dollar estate, and the deduction is $5 million, $2 million would go to spouse B tax free. And then spouse B would manage the us distributed assets of Spouse A in trust until their death, at which both are distributed. Or, something like that. And it can be quite helpful - my mother came from long lived stock, and my father did not. Some things, like the house, were therefore in her name alone. Which proved problematic when she died first. But, thanks to an A/B trust, he still lives there.

Another thing maybe mentioned above is that Crooked Hillary has proposed abolishing the ability to delay appreciation of assets. Last I knew, you had two choices - take the stepped up basis and pay the taxes, or keep the old basis and realize the tax upon sale of an asset (and she wants to also eliminate delaying realization of gain when you sell one asset and within 11 months before or after, buy a similar one). The problem there is that a lot of the assets involved in this sort of thing are closely held family businesses and farms. What this would mean is that if you have such, when you died, any gain would be taxed before the asset could be transferred to the next generation. Often, these are cash poor (and the IRS requires cash), which would, in many cases require the sale of the business or farm to pay the estate taxes.

What must be remembered is that these sorts of tax changes are aimed at the almost or barely rich. Not the Clintons, Trumps, or Cubans. For them, the deduction is such a small part of their wealth that it do sent really come into play. And, they can hire a lot of tax attys to bypass much of this. She is going after the upper middle class because that is where the money is. I suspect her estate would first go to Bill, and the overflow to their nefarious family foundation/slush fund.

Dan Hossley said...

I watched that remarkable statement by Mook and was struck by how maladroit it was. Mook seems to be suggesting that Hillary is one of those precious snowflakes we find on campus nowadays, in need to safe spaces from trigger words.

Is that really the message the Hillary campaign wants to send? That she is incapable of meeting the world as it is? It's an amazing position for her to take after spending decades pretending to be competent.

Real American said...

Hillary Clinton is the last person on earth who should be questioning whether someone else has told the truth.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Bruce

For the family farm issue where there is significant value in highly appreciated real estate..... we used FLPs Family Limited Partnerships. I assume those are still legal?

The elimination of deferring taxation on appreciated assets upon inheriting or gifting is a horrible thing that will greatly and negatively impact the middle class. The really wealthy will find ways around it but the general public who inherit a house or some stock will be devastated.

coupe said...

I had an idea last night...

Just give each candidate a button where they can send an electrical shock of say 4000 volts to the other candidate when they think they have just told a lie.

protestmanager said...

So Robby Mook thinks Hillary Clinton is a delicate special snowflake who can't face up to the challenges that every other candidate has had to face?

But he thinks she's qualified to be President? How special.