Said Donald Trump in a speech today.
ADDED: The full text and video of the speech are here. A few more excerpts. Here's the paragraph just before what I've quoted above:
As you know, I am not a politician. I have worked in business, creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life. I’ve never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I’ve never been politically correct – it takes far too much time, and can often make more difficult.That is, even as he's regretting some of the words that have come out of him, he's offering an explanation for why those words happened and refusing to change the conditions that made them possible. It's the price you pay for a direct, clear-speaking non-politician, and it's worth it.
Then there this:
In the world I come from, if something is broken, you fix it.That continues the idea that he's not a politician (and that's a good thing) and the idea that time is short.
If something isn’t working, you replace it.
If a product doesn’t deliver, you make a change.
I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens....
Aren’t you tired of the same old lies and the same old broken promises? And Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the greatest liars of all time.Time is short and we don't need the same old politicians.
Aren’t you tired of arrogant leaders who look down on you, instead of serving and protecting you?
That is all about to change – and it’s about to change soon....
So while sometimes I can be too honest, Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite: she never tells the truth. One lie after another, and getting worse each passing day....
The establishment media doesn’t cover what really matters in this country, or what’s really going on in people’s lives. They will take words of mine out of context and spend a week obsessing over every single syllable, and then pretend to discover some hidden meaning in what I said....
Instead, every story is told from the perspective of the insiders. It’s the narrative of the people who rigged the system, never the voice of the people it’s been rigged against....
I am glad that I make the powerful a little uncomfortable now and again – including some powerful people in my own party. Because it means I am fighting for real change....
Posts
93 comments:
An apology. Come on, Jeb, endorse.
Sometimes your enemies choose your words for you and create a meme. We call those people the Media.
No lying tag?
Peanut. I see why you only make $7.50 an hour.
I watched the entire speech. This was only a very minor feature in what was an impressive outlay of plans and policy.
If the harridan had said that we would hear, endlessly, from your countless apologists in the MSM, how her superior plane of thinking caused her mouth to outpace her superior brain.
Did I mention that the harridan has a superior brain to the rest of us?
"...and I would also like to say that if you were offended by anything I said, you're a LOSER!"
The pivot no one saw coming.
The Humility Card. And Trump played it just right. I credit Conway. She has the social intelligence and the intellectual level needed to get to Donald's mind when he is in his hard nosed fighting mode.
The CNN panel on Anderson Cooper were stunned again. All they could say was wait until Trump says something off message tomorrow. But that was one hell of a speech tonight.
...except when he doesn't.
"But one thing I can promise you, is this: I will always tell you the truth."
That's pretty funny because I didn't start thinking of myself as, basically, pretty much mature, until I came to realize that I pretty much lie, pretty much all the time.
Pretty.
LOL - and if you believe that...
"Trump, reading from a teleprompter, ..." CNN
Funny, I have never seen teleprompter associated with Clinton or Obama.
"I will always tell you the truth." That's right. Someone had to step up and tell us the truth about Lying Ted's father, Obama's birth certificate etc., etc.
You know, I've been snarking "don't you think she looks tired" about Hillary Clinton for quite a while now. But, by golly, she really does look --and act! -- tired.
Good to see Trump demonstrate some self-awareness. Hope it's not too late.
How sincere is he?
The October surprise is humility?
@traditionalguy said...
The Humility Card. And Trump played it just right. I credit Conway. She has the social intelligence and the intellectual level needed to get to Donald's mind when he is in his hard nosed fighting mode.
I know that Donald thinks himself a good actor and as such he performs simple line scripts (he is incapable of complex language) at every event, so there is no way anybody could find sincerity in crap like that in his situation. Insincerity is just another way of lying, so it rolls off his tongue like water off a duck's back.
Gadfly, if you don't actually want Hillary Clinton elected (do you?), but you want to remain intellectually honest in your own mind, you could just shut the fuck up, you know.
@Gadflyhe is incapable of complex language
We don't need complex language. We need common sense solutions.
I will always tell the truth. Except when I say the wrong thing.
Althouse missed the main point. Trump turned Hillary into Nixon.
Trump: I will always tell you the truth.
Jimmy Carter: I will never lie to you.
Correction. CNN deliberately skipped the main point. No surprise.
Trump hammered the corrupt liar.
Whole speech was great. Read it.
Scott Adams says it has a lot to do with the New York style of speech, which Trump compounds, to the delight of his critics, by not speaking from prepared text. Everything is off the cuff. Except in a few occasions when he has done a policy address.
Is there an advantage to the nation to be able to know what a president (should he win) is thinking, by just having him open his mouth as opposed to the secretive, always on guard, both sides of every issue Hillary?
She has people, other people write everything for her.
Sam Harris is suggesting something for her to say.
I'm just interested in how DT plans on fixing our fiscal woes. Hillary will sink us in short order. But DT has a BIG tax cut. Plus he says he won't touch entitlements, which means he's not serious. Growth will help, but not enough. The time is running out to place us on a safe trajectory. I'm afraid neither one has the necessary courage.
"We don't need complex language. We need common sense solutions."
Don't for get that common sense solutions will make America great again, believe me.
BTW, do the cons who are worried about HRC's truthfulness care about DJT's lies?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
Can you at least understand that it's not an ideal situation when DJT has been caught in so many lies?
About 2/3 of the way through the speech now.
Wow! Just wow!
Great speech, great candidate.
John Henry
Good Grief! Does anyone think the President is really that important anymore? A. Lincoln was in the White House with what, 20 people on staff? He was handling a civil war, a transcontinental railroad, and a dynamic and expanding nation. His decisions meant something.
Now we have clowns with what, 1000 staff in the White House? He/she/trans/q will have a pentagon, a few ten-thousand bureaucrats, a few thousands groupies, a few hundred advisers, a few thousand scoundrels to run things with plenty of pay and benefits while h/.../q goes golfing.
Can anyone really get that worked up anymore? At least the South had an actual reason to worry about things changing with Lincoln. He actually changed things. Today, not so much.
If you're thinking nuclear codes...You Are Nuts!
Last 1/3 got even better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ6KTAISXY4
They played him onto the stage with Lee Greenwood's Proud to be an American which I think is a great choice.
Took me a few moments to recognize what they played him off with. I thought a hymn at first. It was a choir singing
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes
you just might find
That you get what you need.
I like Mick and the Boy's version better. It sounded odd sung as a hymn. On the other hand perhaps it works well as a hymn. We are told in Matthew that God provides what we need even if it is not always what we want. On looking at the full lyrics, though, maybe not.
On the the other hand: Your debutante knows what you need, but I know what you want.
I thought it an odd choice at first but now I think I see what he was doing and it may be an inspired choice. (Or maybe not, I have mixed feelings)
John Henry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ6KTAISXY4
Will Trump tell the truth about his campaign manager and his deputy being foreign agents?
WASHINGTON (AP) — A firm run by Donald Trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.
The lobbying included attempts to gain positive press coverage of Ukrainian officials in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. Another goal: undercutting American public sympathy for the imprisoned rival of Ukraine's then-president. At the time, European and American leaders were pressuring Ukraine to free her.
Gates personally directed the work of two prominent Washington lobbying firms in the matter, the emails show. He worked for Manafort's political consulting firm at the time.
Manafort and Gates' activities carry outsized importance, since they have steered Trump's campaign since April. The pair also played a formative role building out Trump's campaign operation after pushing out an early rival. Trump shook up his campaign's organization again this week, but Manafort and Gates retain their titles and much of their influence. The new disclosures about their work come as Trump faces criticism for his friendly overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
John,
If that outro is new to you, you have been paying very little attention to DJT.
Blogger 320Busdriver said...
Hillary will sink us in short order. But DT has a BIG tax cut.
Do you think that McDonalds would make more money or less if they raised the price of hamburgers?
Do you think the USG will take in more revenue or less if they raise the price of govt (tax rates)
We've lowered tax rates 3 times since 1900. In the 20s, in the 60s under JFK, and in the 80's under Reagan.
Tax revenues jumped all three times.
Would we expect something different if Trump lowers tax rates?
John Henry
John,
You can try this next:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsH17taSBzo
Start at 40 minutes, when things get going.
@Bad Lieutenant said...
Gadfly, if you don't actually want Hillary Clinton elected (do you?), but you want to remain intellectually honest in your own mind, you could just shut the fuck up, you know.
Are you a blind and dumb Trump Troll who wants Obama 2 in the White House? That's what you get when you vote for Trump and I don't have the stomach to vote for either crook running. BTW, Angelo Codevilla, a hero to many Trumpians for his work product: "The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It" just happens to agree with me and many, many other Conservatives who won't push the button for T-Rump. Trump didn't win the nomination with my vote and unfortunately, he won't lose because of my vote, so my conscience is clear. We do have one common worry - polls show that Donald is dragging the down ticket down. We stand to lose both Houses of Congress.
PB&J
I read something about it the other day but assumed it was the RS version. I don't generally watch Trump's speeches so this was the first time I heard it.
John Henry
interesting how the story comes to light, I wonder if he's the kin of the former ambassador to france,
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-14/now-podesta-group-gets-involved-claims-story-saudi-funding-hillary-was-hack
so, who is has presented itself as a greater foe,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/11/1499723/-Hillary-Clinton-Saudi-Arabia-and-Weapons-Manufacturers
John,
Kennedy started with and went to a huge tax rate, much more than HRC or BHO are in favor of.
Reagan raised taxes after cutting them. And, he doubled the debt and tripled the deficit. Which is a huge Keynesian boost to the economy.
Clinton raised taxes.
The purest form of lowering rates from current levels w/o also including tax increases is the W administration. That is a fact. The wheels fell off the economy while W was in office.
"But one thing I can promise you, is this: I will always tell you the truth."
Interesting. Something beyond Hillary's capability.
PB&J,
Scott Adams linked to that that today and I looked but don't have time to watc h. I'll download it as an MP3 and listen as I am driving about.
I've been enjoying Adams for the past year and this sounds like it might be interesting.
Downloadable MP3 is here http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_3383_Scott_Adams.mp3
John Henry
PB&J
So you think raising prices (taxes) will increase govt revenue, I take it.
John Henry
John: Took me a few moments to recognize what they played him off with. I thought a hymn at first. It was a choir singing
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes
you just might find
That you get what you need.
I like Mick and the Boy's version better. It sounded odd sung as a hymn. On the other hand perhaps it works well as a hymn.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is the Rolling Stones' version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7leQB_Oe_k
Speaking of taxes, perhaps it is time to think of a wealth tax. Probably to replace the income tax but perhaps alongside it at reduced rates.
Something like 1% on net worth over $1mm.
Buffett currently pays about $15-20mm in income tax. the wealth tax would ding him about $700mm.
Bezos pays about $1.2mm. the wealth tax would ding him $400mm.
Trump may well pay $0 in income taxes. The wealth tax would ding him $100mm. (He is the only politician I have heard talking about doing it, though)
That is, if anyone is really interested in having the wealthy pay their "fair share".
I don't know how much Buffett and Bezos pay in income tax, I assumed 40% rate on their reported incomes. It may well be less.
John Henry
John,
Even the Laffer curve has a left side. That is, Laffers says that there is a rate that is the maximum gov revenue generator, but, according to the curve, there are also rates that are below the optimal taxing rate.
I don't mind being on the left side of the Laffer curve, because that means we can keep more dough. But, the gov needs to pay it's bills. What are the feds? Is total fed revenue around 19%. That is not crazy high. W/ everything our country does, and needs to do (e.g. infrastructure, education and limiting borrowing), I can see that at 20% or a bit more.
"I assumed 40% rate on their reported incomes."
That's a joke?
Sean F,
Thanks for that. I was only familiar with the radio version and I didn't remember ever hearing that choirlike intro.
John Henry
Maybe, you're using the word income to refer to W-2 income. As if other income doesn't count. Then, 40% sounds about right.
FullMoon said...
"Trump, reading from a teleprompter, ..." CNN
Funny, I have never seen teleprompter associated with Clinton or Obama.
FullMoon, I recall vividly the whole Obama teleprompter thing when he was running the first time. I can recall the remarks suggesting that he was too dependent on the teleprompter. I remember folks going nuts (as I did myself) when he dragged that teleprompter everywhere he went, even having it set up when he was speaking to a kindergarten class. RIck Santorum called him the "reader in chief." I used to follow a hilarious website called MIchelle's Mirror, which was an offshoot of Barack's Teleprompter. Oh, yes, the teleprompter was an issue for Obama and the media (as well as the bloggers and internet commentors) talked about it a lot. This is not special criticism just for Mr. Trump. And in this case, it is noteworthy for the media because he speaks so differently when he uses a teleprompter than when he does not.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
"I assumed 40% rate on their reported incomes."
Huh?
Nope, no joke, though it is just a round number off the top of my head and I don't vouch for precision. Isn't 40% the top rate currently? As I said, I expect they pay less.
I don't guarantee the precision of the incomes or net worth either. I am going from memory and they may be a bit higher or lower, but I am pretty sure I am in the ballpark.
the point is: they pay very little in income tax because they have very little income, relative to their wealth. Now matter what rate you charge them, even 95% or higher, they will still pay very little in income tax relative to their wealth.
John Henry
"Speaking of taxes, perhaps it is time to think of a wealth tax."
I knew it.
probably helps to want trump to win
but to me that was actually touching + humane
good for him and i hope he can somehow be forgiven
PB&J,
No, not necessarily just W-2 income. I was thinking of all income subject to income tax.
Buffett is worth about $60-70bn. but most of that is in B-H stock. That has never paid a dividend so, other than salary and bonus he receives no income from it. from B-H he receives a fairly low salary, less than $200,000 or so plus bonuses and I think it totals to $5-10mm/yr. Other investment income brings him up to the $40-50mm range to pay income tax on.
When the value of his B-H stock jumps from $65 to $70bn, there is no tax due on the $5bn because it is not income. Unless he sells shares, of course.
Bezos is worth $40-50bn, virtually all in Amazon stock which also does not pay dividends. My recollection is that his total income, mostly Amazon salary and bonus is around $3mm/yr. I don't know if he receives any dividends or other income from the WaPo. I would suspect not much. His space venture probably operates at a loss.
John Henry
I've advocated this before, Mike, why your surprise?
Your objection to a wealth tax is?
John Henry
I think that line was a mistake. Maybe not tonight, but the media is going to hound him with it.
"Do you regret this line?"
"How about this line? Do you regret it?"
"How about when you said.... do you regret that?"
And if he doesn't cry and beg forgiveness and stab his own eyes out in remorse, they will continue to hound him over it.
Tax revenues jumped all three times.
Would we expect something different if Trump lowers tax rates?
John Henry
I'm all for tax reform. It's been badly needed for years. If for no other reason than to stimulate growth which continues to falter under Obama.
But entitlements ARE the drivers of our future shortfalls. You think 20T is bad enough?
Hard choices are necessary to avoid disaster. Medicare is the most critical. SS not as bad. Right now the average retiree uses up 3X what he/she paid into mediacre by the time he/she dies. How long can that go on?
Trumps "saying" he won't touch these. He is either lying to us, or is too dumb. My guess is he's playing politician and telling us what he thinks we want to hear. To get elected. Christie talked about means testing SS, Trump used to talk about that too, but he has reversed and now says we can't touch em.
gadfly said...Trump didn't win the nomination with my vote and unfortunately, he won't lose because of my vote, so my conscience is clear. We do have one common worry - polls show that Donald is dragging the down ticket down.
--
Ok..so if you are worried about that, then you might want to consider the lesser of two evils here and recommend those whose votes count do the same.
If you don't have a productive role to play in public discourse beyond keeping your conscience clear, then just be quiet with your own conscience.
You, Chuck..and your clear consciences.
Cheers.
"I've advocated this before, Mike, why your surprise?"
You denied it the last time, but no, no surprise.
"Your objection to a wealth tax is?"
My objection is I've saved and scrimped aggressively my entire life to provide for my retirement. I've done everything "right". Everything we would want (you would think) a responsible person to do to not suck off the public teat. And you think it's a good idea to confiscate it.
I think (maybe I'm wrong) that you think of yourself as a conservative. Yet you ignore incentives like a leftist.
John,
Sure, your fleshing out of these folk's income makes sense.
Of course, we can all agree that Bezos is, one way or another, taking home more than 3mm. A guy's got make a living.
Is OM loaded?
I wouldn't have guessed that.
Don't worry OM. As w/ the death tax, there'll be workarounds. Get good lawyers and accountants.
One teleprompter exercise down, 80 to go . . . .
"Is OM loaded?"
No. And that's the point.
Meanwhile, on the "I'll never lie to you" front, this from the Washington Post on the charitable donations he announced over the years on Celebrity Apprentice:
"The Washington Post tracked all the 'personal' gifts that Trump promised on the show—during 83 episodes and seven seasons—but could not confirm a single case in which Trump actually sent a gift from his own pocket.
A wealth tax is a great idea! We could call it "The Trust and Foundation Lawyers Beach House Act".
my conscience is clear. We do have one common worry - polls show that Donald is dragging the down ticket down. We stand to lose both Houses of Congress.
Oh and you see no correlation there do you? That's just not too bright.
It is, LITERALLY, not possible for Trump to be a worse president than Hillary Clinton. If you want Hillary Clinton to be president you are my enemy and the enemy of all true Americans.
Brilliant! The Donald demonstrates self-awareness and empathy. Although, from now on, every interview he does will ask him to apologize or show regret for each individual contumely, so he will need to rehearse a canned response to that. My personal preference is, "next question, thank you."
readering said...
One teleprompter exercise down, 80 to go . . . .
--
Yep..probably 30 more than Hil' will be able to squack through...meds willing.
Matthew Blaine said: My personal preference is, "next question, thank you."
I like it, too! If he starts pandering to the MSM, my enthusiasm will fade.
Wealth taxes on the living are a terrible idea, just as capital gains taxes and corporate taxes are terrible ideas- they literally make the country as a whole poorer in capital.
In any case, you already have wealth taxes in the form of the estate tax (also a terrible idea in the way it is collected and spent, but it is already there). Consumption taxes are probably the most efficient taxes you could possibly devise, but I won't support them until the income tax is repealed by constitutional amendment.
Look, people who don't spend their wealth are good for society- people like Warren Buffet are good- they aren't consuming the goods and services to the extent that their capital produces. As a lowly peon, that is exactly how you should want it. And, in any case, when the wealthy decide to convert it into consumption, their wealth gets converted into income, which gets taxed. We can argue about the tax rates on that conversion, but taxing wealth before it is converted into income will be terribly destructive, and will likely lead to even more inefficient arrangements of capital.
Read the speech- it was a good one- there was more to it than just the sort of apology. Don't agree with all of it on the policy, but I think it shows him as more of a real person than is Shelob. The best thing about it is the exploding heads on the Left. Hilarious!
"Wealth Tax" is a bad idea. It's basically a property tax on unrealized gains from investments. It's a tax on equity, anyone want to pay federal taxes on home appreciation, it's the same thing. A wealth tax, along with income and other taxes would destroy capital formation in the middle class and the economy as a whole.
We would be better off lowering the corporate tax to almost zero and bring all the corporate income back to the USA to be taxed and contribute to the economy instead of being offshored, tens of trillions of dollars.
I did watch the speech, but read it. Great speech for Trump.
The thing that seems to be going under the radar so far is that Trump seems to be making a lot of good substantial speeches this week. Staying on message and reading the TelePrompTer. And esp going after Blacks this week and a heir votes. The Trump that is so villages field by the left and the MSM (I repeat myself) is not the Trump we saw last week. Hard hitting speeches. Definitely not the freewheeling Trump the media law veld up through the conventions, when they turned on his m (as they always do to the Republican nominee).
FullMoon, I recall vividly the whole Obama teleprompter thing when he was running the first time.
Not by the "impartial media".
My objection is I've saved and scrimped aggressively my entire life to provide for my retirement. I've done everything "right". Everything we would want (you would think) a responsible person to do to not suck off the public teat. And you think it's a good idea to confiscate it.
The insanely rich are overwhelmingly Democrats. Why should I expect a moment of concern about what their supporters want?
It's not like our modern robber barons are actually improving the country. Rockefeller, Ford, et al were dramatically better people for the country, and overall, then the current robber barons like Zuckerburg.
"The Washington Post tracked all the 'personal' gifts that Trump promised on the show—during 83 episodes and seven seasons—but could not confirm a single case in which Trump actually sent a gift from his own pocket.
I'm a fan of Food Network's "Cutthroat Kitchen". They will have "celebrity" chefs who are on the show for charity. When eliminated, the host Alton Brown, says "We'll give (x) amount to your charity".
I don't expect Alton PERSONALLY to give the money. I expect the production company of the show to do so.
That is, if anyone is really interested in having the wealthy pay their "fair share".
Not really. When you tax "wealth" keeping in mind that "wealth" doesn't necessarily represent cash in the bank, but assets of value. By forcing wealth to be converted to cash for tax purposes you are eliminating those things that wealth has created in order to do so. For example; My factory making widgets employs fifty people and has an asset value of 100 million dollars. The gross profit per year is seven million. After expenses there is a net profit of 1.5 million which I will use for R&D and business modernization. It should become obvious now why a tax on wealth will only prove to drive businesses further overseas.
I think you use the wealth tax as a threat. Buffet and his ilk have salted their assets away but cry for higher income taxes on the not-yet-billionaires. Target these clowns first and watch them clam up about income tax hikes on the "rich".
"The insanely rich are overwhelmingly Democrats. Why should I expect a moment of concern about what their supporters want?"
Since when are taxes limited to the insanely rich? The problem is there isn't that much money to be had (compared to the government's "needs") from the insanely rich. John Henry wants to start at one million dollars. Do you consider one million dollars insanely rich, damikesc? I don't.
Blogger PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Of course, we can all agree that Bezos is, one way or another, taking home more than 3mm. A guy's got make a living.
Do you have any evidence of that? I don't and thus have no reason to believe it is not in that range.
Why would he? You can cover daily expenses of a pretty good lifestyle on $3mm pretty easily. A lot of his expenses are paid for by Amazon. Security, for example, and are not attributable to him as income. Travel, for another. If he wants to hop over to NYC to see Hamilton, I am sure he can find a business reason to do so. Family can come along for free. He can probably find some business reason for Amazon to pay for the theatre tickets.
If he took more income, he would just have to pay more income tax. What would be the point?
If he needs to buy a big ticket item, say a house, he can just peel off some of his "supermoney" (Amazon stock. Term from 'Adam Smith's 1973 book Supermoney) to pay for it. He will be taxed on that supermoney, of course, but since he can time it and since it is capital gains, much less.
In any event, I went and looked and find I was in error on both Bezos' wealth and his income. According to Forbes he is worth more than I thought: $66bn not $40-50bn
His total compensation from Amazon is also lower than I thought:
As Chief Executive Officer, Director at AMAZON.COM INC, Jeffrey P. Bezos made $1,681,840 in total compensation. Of this total $81,840 was received as a salary, $0 was received as a bonus, $0 was received in stock options, $0 was awarded as stock and $1,600,000 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2015 fiscal year.
http://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html
So, PB&J, do you know of any other income that might bump Bezos out of that $3mm ballpark?
John Henry
Blogger Mac McConnell said...
It's a tax on equity, anyone want to pay federal taxes on home appreciation,
You already do at the state/local level. Worse, actually, since you don't pay tax on the equity or "wealth". You pay tax on the value of the property even if you have zero or negative equity on it.
John Henry
I understand most of the arguments people are making above to a wealth tax. I can even sympathize with them.
Most can also be applied to taxes on income.
We need to finance government and unless we get it small enough that we can go to a PBS model, with a pledge drive every April, we need taxes. the only question is what is overall best.
I've long been pretty vocal over the need to shrink government and to move all government down to as local a level as possible. No goverment should do something the individual can do, state govt should do nothing that could be done by local government, FG should do nothing that can't be done by the states.
Shrink govt enough and the question of taxes become minimal.
John Henry
Blogger Original Mike said...
You denied it the last time, but no, no surprise.
Go read what I wrote. I denied I was advocating it in that note. I was objecting to you saying things I did not say
I think (maybe I'm wrong) that you think of yourself as a conservative. Yet you ignore incentives like a leftist.
Can you define "conservative" for me? I can't. It seems to mean something different every time I hear it. The main characteristic of conservatives seems to be that they want to control my life just as much as progressives do, albeit in different ways.
Fuck conservatism.
I've been pretty explicit about my political views over the years. I am a liberal and have said so specifically many times here. (Or, if you prefer classical liberal, minarchist, libertarian, small govt person etc. But not "conservative")
So please, no need to insult me by calling me a conservative! :)
My guy in 2008 and 2012 was Ron Paul. In 2016 Rand Paul and Cruz (except for citizenship). When they didn't get the nod, I became an Obama supporter on the grounds that he would cause people to lose faith in govt. I don't know whether he is a stealth liberal or just incompetent but it doesn't matter. He has moved the US electorate further from progressivism and toward liberalism than a Ron Paul ever could have.
I support Trump for much the same reason. He is going to wreck the party system (I hope) and wreck faith in govt. (I hope) We can then build something good from the wreckage. (I hope)
Fuck conservatism. It is no different from progressivism, just more goodies for their guys and more misery for the rest of us.
John Henry
I would also move a lot of taxpayer funded services to fee funded services. that way people could decide "Do I really want this service and am I willing to pay that much for it?"
John Henry
All that's fine, John. But a wealth tax is a horrible idea.
Here is an old story where Trump talked about a 1 time tax on the wealthy(10M+). Back in the good old days when the debt was a paltry 5T.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Tax reform would likely include a combo of rate reductions to promote growth, but also base broadening to pay for those lower rates.
All the discussions I've seen on the current Trump plan indicates its not revenue neutral, with some saying it will cost up to 10T over 10 years. No doubt increased growth can help pay for some of that deficit, but IIRC its likely to cover 1/3 of the lost revenue.
Blogger Original Mike said...
All that's fine, John. But a wealth tax is a horrible idea.
I agree with you. The question is whether it is a more horrible idea than any other kinds of taxes and we could certainly debate that.
But anyone who is unwilling to put a tax on wealth needs to just STFU about "taxing the wealthy/rich" or "making the wealthy/rich pay their fair share" etc.
I don't recall you being one of them, Mike. There are certainly lots of them out there including virtually every presidential candidate that I can ever recall.
John Henry
"I don't recall you being one of them, Mike."
You're right, I'm not.
Since when are taxes limited to the insanely rich? The problem is there isn't that much money to be had (compared to the government's "needs") from the insanely rich. John Henry wants to start at one million dollars. Do you consider one million dollars insanely rich, damikesc? I don't.
No. I'm also not advocating starting it there.
$50M? Then you can get fucked six ways from Sunday. No skin off my back. I'm tired of these wealthy shits constantly supporting Progressives who want to soak them while expecting conservatives, that they hate, to protect them from the negatives of their support.
Let them experience the negative. George Soros wants to fund anarchy and killing of Western Civilization? Then he should be soaked, hard, for doing so.
I also advocate removing "non profit" status from any remotely political organization.
I think most conservatives agree the wealth tax is a terrible idea. But as long as Warren Buffoon keeps yapping about raising income taxes .... as opposed to taxing their accumulated assets, I say keep it on the table until they squeal.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A firm run by Donald Trump's campaign chairman directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party, attempting to sway American public opinion in favor of the country's pro-Russian government, emails obtained by The Associated Press show. Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, never disclosed their work as foreign agents as required under federal law.
He's gone. Clinton's campaign chairman runs a firm that is Sberbank (The Kremlin's bank) lobbying efforts here in the US.
Any thoughts, since this is a huge issue for a chairman of a campaign?
While we are at it note Trump visited LA today to see the impact of the floods. Obama and Clinton too busy. Good move. The guy has energy!
Regarding taxes: the first and most important is to reduce corporate taxes and incentivize repatriation of the corporate funds being held overseas. There are billions of dollars sitting on balance sheets that will need to be invested somewhere. Even if only half are invested here we will be way ahead. Bringing the corporate tax rate to international levels- and getting rid of the ridiculous loopholes/corporate welfare - will provide a tremendous stimulus to our economy.
Blogger Humperdink said...
Warren Buffoon keeps yapping about raising income taxes .... as opposed to taxing their accumulated assets..
---
I keep wishing the Warren and other guilt-ridden wealthy individuals would tap into their competitive natures and participate in telethon for IRS.
They could try to out do each other while getting the virtue recognition they crave..all while filling the nation's coffers.
Maybe Hil could "donate" a speech for the cause.
"...and getting rid of the ridiculous loopholes/corporate welfare - will provide a tremendous stimulus to our economy."
I could not agree more. It will never happen. Corporate welfare is politician's milk.
Post a Comment