A Challenge for Trump Supporters

a reply to: Annee

You can read it here
www.donaldjtrump.com...

a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.

I'm voting for Trump because I believe he will downsize government, reduce overall spending, and reduce regulations.

I have no illusions about Trump's constitutional knowledge. It ain't much.

I like his list of judicial nominees.

After that, I like that the cocktail Republican establishment hates him.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Whether its (R) (D) (I) (C) (G) in that office, the rich will still get richer and the poor will stay there or fall lower in their bracket. Per your posts, your a tax man, you should understand this better than anyone. Every facet of income is subject to tax and everything keeps going up in price.

I understand it very well, and they keep passing laws that allow the rich to get richer. I have a couple of clients that make up to 70 grand a year in dividends, and not pay a penny in taxes. Hooray for my clients, and f everyone else.

originally posted by: ValentineWiggin
a reply to: Annee

You can read it here
www.donaldjtrump.com...

There is nothing about Trump I can justify for the position of President of the US.

But, I will read it. I will also read Hillary's.

a reply to: ketsuko

Coming from an economical crash it is actually good though.

That comes on top of a massive job loss

THAT, and that alone right there is why I don't get Hillary supporters. They simply do not like Trump, they don't give a damn about the actual policies, they just don't like Trump.

Her getting into office will be a continuance of motivation for corporations to base themselves outside the US. The ignorance is strong in hilldog supporters.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.

No that is Bush, I think Obama's job numbers have grown almost every month. This recession wasn't Obama, we can lay this one at Bush's feet.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Exactly my point. You, me and I would assume most of ATS spends a very large chunk of their income for mostly sustaining reasons, if not all. Leaves very little room to have money for a retirement plan or investments. But oh hey, as long as were buying overpriced junk, corporations are happy. Banks are happy.

I am not happy.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm voting for Trump because I believe he will downsize government, reduce overall spending, and reduce regulations.

I have no illusions about Trump's constitutional knowledge. It ain't much.

I like his list of judicial nominees.

After that, I like that the cocktail Republican establishment hates him.

What regulations do you want removed, or agencies? You want us to go back to the 1900's with no environmental regs, no health regs? Seriously what do you consider less regulation? Slavery back would probably suit you best, but that, even the Donald, can't do.

a reply to: Vector99

It's been one of the slowest recoveries we've had in our history. Only the Great Depression had a worse one.

The common factor in both cases was excessive government interference trying to force the economy to move.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.

No that is Bush, I think Obama's job numbers have grown almost every month. This recession wasn't Obama, we can lay this one at Bush's feet.

I didn't blame the recession on Obama. I blamed the crap recovery on him. Keep up.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Exactly my point. You, me and I would assume most of ATS spends a very large chunk of their income for mostly sustaining reasons, if not all. Leaves very little room to have money for a retirement plan or investments. But oh hey, as long as were buying overpriced junk, corporations are happy. Banks are happy.

I am not happy.

I am not happy either, and I live a relative frugal life. Trump wants to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, let wallstreet take the american public for a ride. He represents everything I have fought against in my life. I do not like Hillary either, so writing my dog in for Prez.

I will pay a lot of attention to the down ballot elections as my local politicians affect my life, far more than the national ones.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Vector99

1% economic growth is bad. That's about what we've been averaging. That comes on top of a massive job loss. So lots of folks lost jobs and then we haven't been gaining them faster than we've been gaining new workers.

That's bad.

If we don't change that, the economy will bottom out because we keep subsidizing the ones who can't find work off the backs of the ones who are working. How long do you think working families and businesses can keep addiing extra, unproductive mouths to their bills before they are out of job or out of business? It's a death spiral.

That's Obama.

No that is Bush, I think Obama's job numbers have grown almost every month. This recession wasn't Obama, we can lay this one at Bush's feet.

I didn't blame the recession on Obama. I blamed the crap recovery on him. Keep up.

We have a crap recovery, at least it is a recovery, what have the republicans done to help it along, nothing. They met the night he was innaugurated and agreed to oppose any position he had, no matter how it might help the country.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

He wants to cut taxes across the board. Do you have tax liability? Then you will be paying less.

Why do you hate people who have more than you so much that you want a cut for yourself but can't stand the thought that they might get a cut too?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Trump and Clinton both share in the sentiment that if you ease up on their tax burden that they will in turn, turn that capital into jobs. THIS IS NOT THE CASE EVER! Happen to see the forfeiture of the Wells Fargo exec and his 41M?

My simplistic mind says if they are in fact "reigned in" and have a higher tax burden, the will turn that on the consumer or end user. If they are not and are free to make more money and work the market to raise prices they will reap the rewards.

In both cases middle and lower class loses.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BubbaJoe

He wants to cut taxes across the board. Do you have tax liability? Then you will be paying less.

Why do you hate people who have more than you so much that you want a cut for yourself but can't stand the thought that they might get a cut too?

Number one, I hate no one. I never asked for a cut myself, I do not feel my taxes are out of line, though I don't make a whole lot. In the early 90's, I made six figures, and paid a boatload of taxes. I look after my family, pay my bills, and you, because you think you make more money, are going to try to claim superiority? You are a douche weasel.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Trump and Clinton both share in the sentiment that if you ease up on their tax burden that they will in turn, turn that capital into jobs. THIS IS NOT THE CASE EVER! Happen to see the forfeiture of the Wells Fargo exec and his 41M?

My simplistic mind says if they are in fact "reigned in" and have a higher tax burden, the will turn that on the consumer or end user. If they are not and are free to make more money and work the market to raise prices they will reap the rewards.

In both cases middle and lower class loses.

Trickle down economics does not work.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: MrSensible

One Reason that stands out the Most . Reducing the Capital Gains Tax from 35 Percent to 15 Percent . The Projected Economic Growth if Mr. Trump as President did that would see the U.S. Economy Grow Between 3.4 to 4.5 Percent Annually . We are talking about Trillions of Dollars there .

Tell me... what good does it do to lower someone's taxes from 35% to 15% if they're already paying 0% (at least the "smart" ones anyway ) ???

a reply to: MrSensible

When i saw the thread title i thought the challenge would be something like recite the alphabet or count to ten . After all they are a bunch of deplorables .

a reply to: Annee

Yes, she also mentions childcare. However, I think Donald Trump's plan is laid out more specifically.

She said that as President she would look for responsible ways to do even more than the great start we’ve seen from the Obama administration – whether it’s providing tax cuts to new parents or grants to states targeted for infants and toddlers.

-Hillary

Americans will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for children under age 13 that will be capped at state average for age of child, and for eldercare for a dependent. The exclusion will not be available to taxpayers with total income over $500,000 Married-Joint /$250,000 Single, and because of the cap on the size of the benefit, working and middle class families will see the largest percentage reduction in their taxable income. The childcare exclusion would be provided to families who use stay-at-home parents or grandparents as well as those who use paid caregivers, and would be limited to 4 children per taxpayer. The eldercare exclusion would be capped at $5,000 per year. The cap would increase each year at the rate of inflation.

The Trump Plan would offer spending rebates for childcare expenses to certain low-income taxpayers through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The rebate would be equal to 7.65 percent of remaining eligible childcare expenses, subject to a cap of half of the payroll taxes paid by the taxpayer (based on the lower-earning parent in a two-earner household). This rebate would be available to married joint filers earning $62,400 ($31,200 for single taxpayers) or less. Limitations on costs eligible for exclusion and the number of beneficiaries would be the same as for the basic exclusion. The ceiling would increase with inflation each year.

All taxpayers would be able to establish Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) for the benefit of specific individuals, including unborn children. Total annual contributions to a DCSA are limited to $2,000 per year from all sources, which include the account owner (parent in the case of a minor or the person establishing elder care account), immediate family members of the account owner, and the employer of the account owner. When established for children, the funds remaining in the account when the child reaches 18 can be used for education expenses, but additional contributions could not be made.

To encourage lower-income families to establish DCSAs for their children, the government will provide a 50 percent match on parental contributions of up to $1,000 per year for these households. When parents fill out their taxes they can check a box to directly deposit any portion of their EITC into their Dependent Care Savings Account. All deposits and earnings thereon will be free from taxation, and unused balances can rollover from year to year.

Trump

Hillarys paragraph was the most specific detail I could find. Most everything else I could see was non specific to her actual plan. Please share if I have overlooked something.
( posting from my phone so this might not be the most well formatted reply )
( I added the paragraph spacing to the quote from trumps website because my phone jumbled it all together)