Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

Of course it's not material. I'm often just here to rustle jimmies.

To continue the story about the American PE company, they recently announced that nationally over 70% of the offices will be closed along with over 25% of the workforce being laid off. That probably counts as a material number...

[RedSpawn]

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

 

....

 

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

 

Let's try this website instead and see if the case about the average tax rate for corporations is made a bit better. . . .

 

Source:

https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-fortune-500-companies-avoid-paying-income-tax/

 

http://fortune.com/2016/10/06/fortune-500-tax-haven/

 

On paper, the United States has the highest corporate income tax, at 35%, amongst all of the OECD industrialized nations. President Donald Trump has promised to cut that rate to 15% even as he has boasted that his corporate empire has managed to pay little to no income tax in some years. Yet, he is not alone, as hardly any company pays the full 35%, as indicated in a recent New York Times article. Some companies have even managed to pay absolutely zero in income taxes, and no, it is not because they weren’t profitable. (For more, see: How Trump's Proposals Can Impact Your Taxes.)

 

The Real Tax Bill

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in a recent study, found that over the eight-year period from 2008 to 2015, 258 profitable Fortune 500 companies paid an average effective federal income tax rate of 21.2%. Over that same period, exactly 18 companies, including General Electric, International Paper, Priceline.com and PG&E Corp., avoided paying a single penny of federal income tax.

 

A total of 100 companies avoided paying income taxes in at least one year between 2008 and 2015, and their combined pretax income during that period totaled $336 billion. Yet, instead of paying $118 billion according to the 35% statutory income tax rate, the number of tax breaks applicable to these companies allowed them to earn a negative effective tax rate. That means they actually earned more in their after-tax income than in their pretax income, often due to tax rebates from the U.S. Treasury.

 

How to Avoid Taxes

There are several major ways that corporations avoid paying taxes, or manage to earn tax subsidies. One way is through finding ways to shift U.S. profits to foreign subsidiaries in countries with lower tax rates, a practice known as offshore tax sheltering.

 

 

Another way is through the use of accelerated depreciation. The relative degree of freedom in tax laws has allowed companies to expense the cost of their capital at a faster pace than it actually wears out. This allows a company to declare less income and thus defer paying taxes until later years, and as long as the company continues to invest, the deferral of taxes can continue for an indefinite amount of time.

 

The giving of stock options to employees, as a part of their compensation, is another avenue that has helped companies reduce their total tax bill. When the options are exercised, the difference between what employees pay for the stock and its market value can be claimed for a tax deduction.

 

Finally, some industries such as research, oil and gas drilling, ethanol production, alternative energy, video game and film production, are privileged by the federal tax code to receive certain tax breaks. (For more, see: How Big Corporations Avoid Big Tax Bills.)

 

Over the eight years, more than half of the total tax subsidies, which totaled $286 billion, went to just 25 companies. AT&T raked in the largest amount with a total of $38 billion in subsidies over the period. Other major recipients included Wells Fargo at $31.4 billion, J.P. Morgan Chase at $22.2 billion, Verizon at $21.1 billion, IBM at $17.8 billion and Exxon Mobil at $12.9 billion.

[Winstonm]

Back to your regularly scheduled programming:

 

Over the past 12 months, President Trump has been on a mission to try to erase Barack Obama’s legacy.

 

“I’ve been very active in overturning a number of executive actions by my predecessor,” Trump boasted in November before lamenting that he could not go so far as to reverse Obama’s pardon of two Thanksgiving turkeys

 

Vindictiveness does not make for great governance.

[Winstonm]

Karma? Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted this a year or so ago:

 

“When you’re attacking FBI agents because you’re under criminal investigation, you’re losing.”

[ldrews]

Karma? Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted this a year or so ago:

 

Seems to me that at the moment Trump is winning.

[cherdano]

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[ldrews]

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

The poll that counts is the next Presidential election, don't you agree?

 

And if I remember correctly, almost all of the polls had Trump losing the last election. And the funny thing is, Hillary's popularity has dropped even more than Trump's. If the election were held again Trump would still defeat her. Isn't that something?

[RedSpawn]

Back to your regularly scheduled programming:

 

 

 

Vindictiveness does not make for great governance.

But it makes for great television and ratings especially for Americans who thought the only African-Americans that should be in the White House are the ones serving food to the President, White House staff and foreign diplomats.

[Winstonm]

The poll that matters occurs Nov 2018 with the mid-terms. The only reason Trump is effective at all is due to the monopoly by the Republicans. If the house or senate or...heaven forbid...both flip, Trump is a lame duck, at best.

[Zelandakh]

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Would it surprise you to learn that this is "fake news", Arend? :o :unsure: :lol:

[ldrews]

The poll that matters occurs Nov 2018 with the mid-terms. The only reason Trump is effective at all is due to the monopoly by the Republicans. If the house or senate or...heaven forbid...both flip, Trump is a lame duck, at best.

 

What you say about the House and Senate flipping is true. But if the tax cut/reform bill that was just passed produces the results that Trump thinks it will, the Democrats will have an uphill battle in the mid-term elections. At the moment I don't hear any cohesive program/plan coming from Democrats to address the many problems in US society.

[hrothgar]

What you say about the House and Senate flipping is true. But if the tax cut/reform bill that was just passed produces the results that Trump thinks it will, the Democrats will have an uphill battle in the mid-term elections. At the moment I don't hear any cohesive program/plan coming from Democrats to address the many problems in US society.

 

Comment the first: The fact that you are grossly ill informed and don't seem to follow anything other than Fox News and Breitbart does not mean that the democrats don't have any cohesive plans.

 

In all seriousness, what does your reading list look like?

 

Do you read Vox or any publications from Brookings? Do you even consult centrist publications like The Atlantic or the Economist.

Did you ever bother to read the reams of policy proposals that Clinton floated in 2016?

 

Where do you believe that you would be exposed to policies floated by the Democrats?

 

Comment the Second:

 

I have no idea what weird little ideas are bouncing around in Trump's brain. And honestly, I don't think it matters whether he knows his tax cut won't benefit the Middle class or just doesn't care.

 

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.

Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

 

Even if you believe that this is going to boost growth, how is this going to change anything in time for the fall elections?

[ldrews]

Comment the first: The fact that you are grossly ill informed and don't seem to follow anything other than Fox News and Breitbart does not mean that the democrats don't have any cohesive plans.

 

In all seriousness, what does your reading list look like?

 

Do you read Vox or any publications from Brookings? Do you even consult centrist publications like The Atlantic or the Economist.

Did you ever bother to read the reams of policy proposals that Clinton floated in 2016?

 

Where do you believe that you would be exposed to policies floated by the Democrats?

 

Comment the Second:

 

I have no idea what weird little ideas are bouncing around in Trump's brain. And honestly, I don't think it matters whether he knows his tax cut won't benefit the Middle class or just doesn't care.

 

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.

Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

 

Even if you believe that this is going to boost growth, how is this going to change anything in time for the fall elections?

 

I prefer to pay attention to where the voting happens and laws are passed. Can you point me to any plan that the Democrats in Congress have put forward?

 

As James Carville, a noted Democratic strategist, has said: "It's the economy, stupid!". If 80% of the taxpayers do indeed see more money in their pocket, and if the economy continues to do as well as the last couple of quarters, what is the Democratic counter? "Vote for us so you can have less money and fewer jobs!"? Doesn't sound good to me.

[ldrews]

Recently Trump made the comment: "The US has spent 7 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East. What a waste! We could have rebuilt the entire infrastructure of the US 3 times over with that money!"

 

Do you agree?

[ggwhiz]

 

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.

Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

 

The one said after that he misread the question

[hrothgar]

Recently Trump made the comment: "The US has spent 7 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East. What a waste! We could have rebuilt the entire infrastructure of the US 3 times over with that money!"

 

Do you agree?

 

I most certainly agree with this statement.

Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

 

Here's the rub.

Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

 

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

 

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

 

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

[ldrews]

I most certainly agree with this statement.

Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

 

Here's the rub.

Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

 

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

 

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

 

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

 

I think the US should simply get out of the Middle East to the extent possible. Apparently you would agree with that.

[Zelandakh]

I think...

Noone here gives a sh!t what you think fückhead.

[ldrews]

Noone here gives a sh!t what you think fückhead.

 

Merry Christmas to you, too.

[RedSpawn]

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2017/12/24/senate-gives-lump-of-coal-to-dozens-of-trump-nominees/

 

Very interesting. . .

Senate gives lump of coal to dozens of Trump nominees

Jamie Dupree

December 24, 2017 Politics.

 

Ratcheting up the level of conflict between Democrats in Congress and the White House, the Senate has officially returned dozens of nominations made this year by President Donald Trump, which will force the Trump Administration to go through the process of renominating the same people, or finding new choices for a variety of positions.

 

 

The returned nominees include Mr. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alexander Azar, Rep. James Bridenstine (R-OK), selected to be the head of NASA, 26 federal judges, and number of executive appointees.

 

While no one knows for sure who objected to the individual nominations – the Senate does not release that information – the feeling in the halls of the Senate was clear, that most of these moves were probably made by Democrats, already at odds with President Trump on a number of fronts, especially over nominations.

 

That means the White House must now either nominate the same people again, or find new candidates for a variety of positions.

 

“I wish they would fight for it just on principle,” said former Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican from Georgia, who was chosen for the Amtrak Board of Directors, but saw his nomination returned by the Senate.

 

Now Westmoreland will wait and see if he gets picked again.

 

“It’s up to them,” he said of the White House and Trump Administration.

 

In a review of similar year-end situations in the Senate over the last 25 years, this was by far the largest number of nominees returned to the White House; click here to read the list.

 

At issue is a Senate rule XXXI, which plainly states that “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President.”

 

Normally at the end of the first year (session) of Congress, most of the nominations that have not been acted on are ‘held over’ to the next year – but that did not happen in 2017.

 

This list of nominees sent back to the White House is so expansive, that it takes over five full pages to list them in the Senate’s “Executive Calendar” for nominations.

 

At the end of 2003, the Senate sent back 17 nominations made by President George W. Bush.

 

At the end of 2009, the first year for President Barack Obama, the Senate returned eight nominations.

 

The Trump White House gets to make its next step on January 3, when the Second Session of the 115th Congress convenes.

[awm]

I most certainly agree with this statement.

Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

 

Here's the rub.

Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

 

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

 

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

 

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

 

It's easy to criticize decisions that have not worked out well with the benefit of hindsight. What's more difficult is making the right call in the present moment. Note that Trump favored the war in Iraq before he was against it.

 

Okay, moving closer to the present. Trump says we should get out of the middle east. While this makes sense to a lot of us, one has to come up with a good alternative plan (since presumably if we get out, terrorist groups like ISIS will still be there and carry out strikes worldwide). Trump has been president for nearly a year, and changing troop levels and/or strategy in the middle east is within his powers as commander in chief (without needing to wait for congress). Have we decreased troop levels? While the government has been less forthcoming, it seems like the number of US soldiers deployed in the middle east has increased.

 

Trump promised a new strategy and Mosul has just been retaken from ISIS, so even though he hasn't "gotten us out" maybe the strategy change has helped? Actually, he's handed things off to the generals and they're pursuing the same strategy the Obama administration used.

 

Trump has (verbally) been on all sides of the issue. He was for the Iraq war, then he was against it. He wanted to stop bombing Syria, then he bombed them for using the same chemical weapons they've been using for years. He wanted to pull out of the middle east, then he increased troop levels. He wanted a new strategy against ISIS, then pursued the same strategy as Obama, now wants credit when Obama's strategy shows progress. He's not particularly consistent in what he says (except when he says "believe me", that consistently means he's lying). But if you look at his actions on this front, he has stepped up our war efforts in Iraq and Syria, antagonized Pakistan, threatened to cancel a treaty with Iran that our allies and independent observers say is working and threatened war against North Korea. I guess threatening nuclear war is his "new strategy" but his bluster may be more worrying to US allies than to enemies. At some point his bluff will be called (perhaps by Kim Jong Un, who likes to make crazy threats of his own) and then Trump will either start an actual nuclear war or else expose his threats as pure bullshit (completely destroying any effectiveness they might have had). Doesn't seem like a good situation.

[ldrews]

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.

Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

 

Are these the same economists that swore that there was no chance in hell of the GDP growth reaching 3% in 2017?

[Winstonm]

Fact check #70043

 

GDP is reported quarterly as annualized, meaning that the quarter being reported is quadrupled. A 3% annualized quarter means that the quarter growth was 0.75%. Seeing that the first quarter of 2017 was 1.2%, it will be next to impossible to end 2017 with a true annual 3.0 growth rate.

 

There were many quarters of 3.0 annualized growth during the Obama presidency.

 

End fact check.

 

Editorial: Empty-headed partisan proclamations about Trump's accomplishments may sway simpleton dunderheads - some posters prove that case - but most posters in the WC are made of sterner stuff and require actual real-world data to be convinced.

 

Here's a better source for Trump's GDP boast, Fortune:

 

But the comparison that he made is somewhat misleading. President Trump compared annual GDP growth in the Obama era to quarterly GDP growth in a three month period. And quarterly GDP often isn’t a good indicator for how much an economy will produce over the year, with quarterly GDP growth often differing significantly from the year’s overall GDP growth.

[hrothgar]

Merry Christmas to you, too.

 

Happy New Year (and I sincerely hope that it is your last!)

[ldrews]

Happy New Year (and I sincerely hope that it is your last!)

 

Perhaps the last that you will have to experience. Enjoy your new year!