Trump and the One Percent...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But Trump is claiming he didn't lose billions in the 80s and 90s.  And we don't know if he's 'restored his fortune'.  We have only his word that he's restored it, and his word is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit.

Boru

He didn't loose meaning gone. as the government is crediting him the money back via taxes.

People like that have a different view of life and business. it doesn't make them a liar it makes you ignorant.otherwise if you saw life as he did you would also be a billionaire.

Your lot in life does not define nor does it mandate every other living being must agree to your world view. If we only saw what you see we would all have the same things be bad at the same thing and have the same job. Your world view places you in your station of life. like wise your command of the language and your world view demand you seek out others who think like you do... 

Any of them billionaires? why? because they think like you think.they see bankruptcy as a loss only. Men like trump see it as a way of washing debt and earning 40% more because taxes will be lifted.

That 40% credit is the same as making money because even though you made the money it is not really yours as you are an agency of the state and the state owns that 40% unless you have been given a tax break, which trump did get when he showed such a loss.

So to him long term he has made his money back several times over by not owning personal income tax.

All of which is beside the point, which is that we don't know whether Trump has made him money back.  He may have, he may not have.  But until and unless we can see his financial statements (and he may be right to keep them private, but that's another topic), all we have to go on is his word, which is all I said.

By the by, I happen to be worth eight trillizillion megabucks.  Trust me.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

... and that’s the sort of thing the layman can actually learn from Trump’s tax returns: he may be obscenely rich (and richly obscene), but that doesn’t mean he even has the business skills to actually make a prosperous nation. Especially when he’s shown to have fucked it up so badly.

[Rev. Rye]

... and that’s the sort of thing the layman can actually learn from Trump’s tax returns: he may be obscenely rich (and richly obscene), but that doesn’t mean he even has the business skills to actually make a prosperous nation. Especially when he’s shown to have fucked it up so badly.

Just to clarify, this quote was in response to Plum's remark (I did not count on Boru chiming in before I clicked "post reply") that voting in Trump based on his business record (after it turns out his losses were huge enough that he wound up being responsible for 2 cents of every business loss one year [not the entire 1990s, though]) was like voting in Jimmy Saville for his record in child care (and bear in mind, for the Yanks here, if the investigation into him is accurate, he'd probably be the biggest sex offender in recorded history with the possible exception of some of the Roman emperors.)

And Trump spent the entire campaign touting his business acumen as being the closest thing to a positive he had going for him (besides his bigotry and his wrestling heel mien), and yet it turns out that even Nicolas Cage (he who's currently working in any stinkbomb movie that'll pay him because he lost his fortune in 2009), or Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt (who blew through their Hills money because they seriously thought the Mayan Apocalypse was going to render it all moot anyway) would have actually proven a better choice in this regard.





Therefore, there actually are things the public can actually glean from Presidential candidates' tax returns. And for more information about what a tax return can show, see here.

[Pat Mustard]

So Trump lost billions in the 80s and 90s and then came back and restored his fortune the same as many other businessmen.  What's the big deal?  He's the president now and we have the hottest economy in almost 50 years.  Sounds like he really has it together financially.  If you want to discredit him stick to attacking his policies and the results of his policies.  Democrats aren't winning on that, so they're reaching for straws.

Lek, have you ever posted anything here that wasn't a lie?

[Lek]

So Trump lost billions in the 80s and 90s and then came back and restored his fortune the same as many other businessmen.  What's the big deal?  He's the president now and we have the hottest economy in almost 50 years.  Sounds like he really has it together financially.  If you want to discredit him stick to attacking his policies and the results of his policies.  Democrats aren't winning on that, so they're reaching for straws.

Lek, have you ever posted anything here that wasn't a lie?

Please point out my lie.

[Amarok]

So you can then lie you didn't lie

[Rev. Rye]

So you can then lie you didn't lie

To be fair, the word “lying” denotes he knows he’s wrong, but is saying the wrong thing intentionally. It doesn’t cover him just being wrong or delusional.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...67c2b29892

(Spoiler alert: it seems good in the short term, but the long term effects are unclear, and the improvements that have happened under his watch seem to be a continuation of trends that happened in Obama’s last years.)

[Pat Mustard]

Lek, have you ever posted anything here that wasn't a lie?

Please point out my lie.

The most egregious one is the lie about current US economic performance you lying idiot.

Here's a graph from the last seventy years. At best the US economy is currently doing bang average, and that's a generous best*. There was no single point during the Clinton presidency for example where the GDP growth didn't do better than it's doing under Dumbfuck. Under Obama, when he was trying to rescue a dying banking system and a dying automotive sector, it was doing better.

* I'm saying very generous here, because the US economy is operating under very special conditions which are artificially inflating GDP numbers. For example with the very low federal interest rates, many people are funding their living through debt (because they are surely not getting them through wages, seeing as those are stagnant in nominal terms, meaning people are being paid less now than last year) which is actually unsustainable. The next time interest rates hit a normal level for an economy with GDP growth of 2-3%, somewhere in the region of 3-4% interest, the whole economic system will come crashing down again, and this time the government won't be able to do a single fucking thing about it, because of Dumbfuck thrashing both the tax base and the oversight mechanisms.

[Lek]

Please point out my lie.

The most egregious one is the lie about current US economic performance you lying idiot.

Here's a graph from the last seventy years.  At best the US economy is currently doing bang average, and that's a generous best*.  There was no single point during the Clinton presidency for example where the GDP growth didn't do better than it's doing under Dumbfuck.  Under Obama, when he was trying to rescue a dying banking system and a dying automotive sector, it was doing better.

* I'm saying very generous here, because the US economy is operating under very special conditions which are artificially inflating GDP numbers.  For example with the very low federal interest rates, many people are funding their living through debt (because they are surely not getting them through wages, seeing as those are stagnant in nominal terms, meaning people are being paid less now than last year) which is actually unsustainable.  The next time interest rates hit a normal level for an economy with GDP growth of 2-3%, somewhere in the region of 3-4% interest, the whole economic system will come crashing down again, and this time the government won't be able to do a single fucking thing about it, because of Dumbfuck thrashing both the tax base and the oversight mechanisms.

Your graph is pointing out percentage change in GDP from one period to the next.  The ups and downs are pretty large and erratic.  Anyway, it's not a complete statement of the health of the economy.  Unemployment has been lower, but that was back in the 50s, more than 50 years ago.  Even black unemployment is lowest since the 70s.  Women's unemployment is way down too.  As far as your predictions for the future of the economy, that remains to be seen.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not really on topic, and I don't care to use the lovely green 'moderator' thingy, so I'll just stick this in as a regular post.

I'd suggest we be a little more careful throwing around the accusation of a poster being a liar.  Expression an opinion is not a lie.  Making a judgement on Donald Trump is not a lie.  Even throwing out a false fact isn't a lie, necessarily.  Whether something is a lie speaks to intent.  I think we could do a better job of distinguishing between 'mistakes' and 'lies'.

Ok, the stick is out of my arse.  Carry on.

Boru