Clinton-What kind of idiot loses a billion dollars

a reply to: proximo

I swear you sound like you want to be a slave

Do you make a habit of taking beggars money?

Loophole/law still doesn't equal all of his taxes. It's not as if he paid zero taxes the last twenty years but this is what the MSM would have you believe.

Not sure, but 3 years later he purchased the GM building with investors for 800 million. You know, the one who rents to 'JYY-NA' as he says.

They then sold it in 2013 for 1.4 billion.

Anyone want to tell me where the bad deal is? He had a bad year 'personally' in 95. That is why it was released. To show what 'could' happen. No content. No truth. All spin. The Clinton mafia at its best....

a reply to: matafuchs

It's pronounced Jy-Naa

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
To be fair what kinda idiot loses $1billion dollars owning casinos????

Your question reminds me of a saying I heard while learning corrupt international business practices:
"How do you make something for $10, sell it for $5, and still make a profit?"

Figure out the trick to the question and it'll make sense.

originally posted by: JinMI

Loophole/law still doesn't equal all of his taxes. It's not as if he paid zero taxes the last twenty years but this is what the MSM would have you believe.

No kidding, and people like you having no understanding of the tax laws at all and believing he did something wrong is why they can get away with it.

a reply to: proximo

I have not claimed anywhere that I think he did something wrong. The perception of the masses however will not look at the LAW for what it is and will consider it a loophole.

Grow up. Your petty condescending remarks do you no good.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: matafuchs

It's pronounced Jy-Naa

Another fine example of a "linguistic kill shot" by an NLP master.

It is not easy to drive talking points into millenial's heads but Trump does it like a pro, even gettimg SNL to sell it for him.

a reply to: JinMI

To be fair....she is just pandering to her supporters. Relatively few of them are capable of either understanding how the tax code works, or the concept that it is purposefully designed to encourage business owners to take another shot at it, if they strike out. In almost any other context than this election, the story would be about the Come-back Kid, who got up.....dusted himself off....and went on to create a 2.0 version, that was better, and provided more jobs.

The funniest part to me, is that the MSM has to make these claims truthful, or risk being sued. So the headline is "could have" written it off for 18 years....as though somehow he wrote the tax code. I have no idea what he is actually worth. But, if he has spent the last 20 years getting back to the ten billion or so, that I've seen bandied about, then he long ago used up his writeoffs, and has been paying taxes since then.....along with facilitating the tax paying of some tens of thousands of employees, who he is paying.

Ok. I was wrong. That was the second funniest part. The 1st funniest part, is that Hillary, and her sycophantic MSM cheerleaders, fell for this ploy. They are literally demanding that he explain how taxes actually work, to people who probably had little interest before this.....and tout his credentials as an expert in it.

But, her statements are probably spot on for the level of her supporters. Even those whom she lovingly calls basement dwellers, aren't going to understand how the economy actually operates. Try telling your kids they can't go to Disneyworld this year, because you have mortgage payments.

State department 6 billion gone missing under Hillary SoS


Edit to add

OP mentioned first

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What kind of country and political system gets into
$17.8 trillion. debt

What kind of people vote those politicians in

Or 2,6 trillion announced lost 9/10/01

originally posted by: JinMI
Clintons words in a rally directed at Donald Trump.

Ok let's avoid the fact that he didn't pay taxes on that particular loss and just, from the MSM narrative, assume he didn't pay taxes at all!

The hypocrisy is so deep here. What about the 6B lost of American taxpayers dollars????

townhall.com...

Like it or not, this has been the political MO as of late. Let's run with a vague argument, assume it as fact and move on ....quickly!

We need to realize that no matter who wins, we are being duped. This is an election of the elite, for the elite and by the elite.

Hillary is ranting to her supporters about the system being rigged in that video. My god.

In her case, takes one to know one. Trump and Hillary being friends and all. I don't believe they stopped being so due to election.

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: JinMI
Clintons words in a rally directed at Donald Trump.

Ok let's avoid the fact that he didn't pay taxes on that particular loss and just, from the MSM narrative, assume he didn't pay taxes at all!

The hypocrisy is so deep here. What about the 6B lost of American taxpayers dollars????

townhall.com...

Like it or not, this has been the political MO as of late. Let's run with a vague argument, assume it as fact and move on ....quickly!

We need to realize that no matter who wins, we are being duped. This is an election of the elite, for the elite and by the elite.

Hillary is ranting to her supporters about the system being rigged in that video. My god.

Haha she would know wouldn't she.

What kind of leader has to "lay off" over 70 people in their "charity"?

www.msn.com...

originally posted by: carewemust

Hillary should be asking, "What IDIOT U.S. President would increase the U.S. National debt by more than all prior Presidents combined!!!???"

Hey now! You leave Ronald Reagan alone! Or were you referring to the ONLY two worse offenders, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

What's funny is a lot of people actually believe Obama doubled the national debt, even though it's SOOOO easy to find the national debt numbers.

Not that raw debt numbers alone mean anything without measuring against GDP, but I figured I should clear it up in case anyone mistakenly thought you were referring to Obama. I've seen some websites and emails who prey on the gullible by convincing them Obama increased the debt more than all presidents combined. He's not even the 4th worst (That would be another conservative icon, George Bush.)

How much did we lose on Obama's green energy deals?

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
SpectraWatt ($500,000)
Solyndra ($535 million)
Beacon Power ($43 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)
A123 Systems ($279 million)
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)
Range Fuels ($80 million)
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

I've seen totals as high as $150B. What kind of idiot does that make him?

originally posted by: Bone75
How much did we lose on Obama's green energy deals?

I know the answer.


Lost 0 and has made millions. It may be the most successful large scale govt loan in US history.


After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

So, replace 'debt' with 'deficit'.
Actually, either way, Obama rules!

Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly doubling the debt.
Bush is next, racking up $3.293 trillion over two terms.
Obama has the largest deficits... will add up to $6.695 trillion for his eight years in office.

Source.

So you can add Reagan and Bush together, and be just over half what Obama has added to the deficit.

What's a deficit? Go look it up.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: carewemust

Hillary should be asking, "What IDIOT U.S. President would increase the U.S. National debt by more than all prior Presidents combined!!!???"

Hey now! You leave Ronald Reagan alone! Or were you referring to the ONLY two worse offenders, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

What's funny is a lot of people actually believe Obama doubled the national debt, even though it's SOOOO easy to find the national debt numbers.

Not that raw debt numbers alone mean anything without measuring against GDP, but I figured I should clear it up in case anyone mistakenly thought you were referring to Obama. I've seen some websites and emails who prey on the gullible by convincing them Obama increased the debt more than all presidents combined. He's not even the 4th worst (That would be another conservative icon, George Bush.)

a reply to: JinMI

Gee, I dunno, what kind of idiot loses 6 billion tax payer dollars from the state department? Oh yeah. That would be Clinton.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: JinMI

trump ships jobs off to china an bleats about bringing manufacturing home to the US liar liar pants on fire

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: JinMI

According to Trump, it was the government that made him take such a hit. From his Art of the Comeback, which talks about his 900 million dollar loss:

This time, the give was precipitated by the U.S. government, more specifically, by Congress. It was 1986, the peak of the real estate market's boom. Some pundits down in Washington, D.C., decided it was time to rein in a few overzealous developers, who, the pols claimed, were unfairly taking advantage of tax breaks and favorable depreciation schedules. The 1981 tax code was revised, and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1986 (TEFRA) was passed, destroying just about any incentive anyone might have for investing in real estate. And, you may remember, it included a stipulation that the tax laws be applied retroactively. Overnight developers and investors went bust by the thousands. The banks did just as badly.

Here's why. First, TEFRA eviscerated the tax shelters--in place to encourage investment--thereby leaving investors virtually no incentive to put their money into any type of development--including low- and moderate-income housing. Second, the upper-income tax rate was lowered from 51 percent to 32 percent. Investing involves risk. With a 51 percent tax, investors might take a chance on a new housing project. If the project went south, the investor could recapture his losses in the form of a tax break. If an investor is taxed only 32 percent, why bother with the risk?

The most damaging effect of this law was, of course, that it would be applied retroactively. Property values fell so precipitously that developers who had never missed a loan payment were being foreclosed upon because regulators, pointing to the abruptly devalued worth of their mortgaged property, demanded millions more in additional collateral. I couldn't believe that a government would allow deals to be made and then wipe them out. It's one thing to establish a new set of guidelines; it's another thing to say, Guess what, the rules you were playing by, and basing already done deals on, are dead. Some people had to pay for tax shelters while, at the same time, paying taxes on the shelters they were buying. Most surprisingly, while I can understand politicians doing the wrong thing, I couldn't believe that the retroactivity provisions would be upheld by the courts, but amazingly, they were. It was a total disaster and incredibly unfair.

People don't seem to understand this (and apparently members of the Supreme Court don't either), but in terms of economics, real estate is the backbone of this country. The industry alone accounts for 20 percent of the gross national product, employs eight million workers, and generates $200 billion in tax revenues. Construction not only creates jobs, it spurs manufacturing. And consider the retail aspect: If people buy houses, they buy carpets, furniture, and so on.

These politicians--many of whom had never functioned in the world of big business, or any business, for that matter--couldn't see past their fingertips. They passed this thing into law without giving one thought to the long-term consequences. Witness the domino effect: By 1993, 62 percent of all airlines had gone bankrupt. Fewer houses were under construction than in 1946. Not since the Great Depression were so few construction workers employed. The Resolution Trust Corporation was forced to sell its property at five cents on the dollar. Real estate values sunk trillions of dollars during this time. Imagine my despair as I watched every single asset I owned--condominiums, hotels, casinos, my airline--hit the skids.

What an idiot, eh?