Who is better for the future of dentistry: Trump or Hillary?

[Cello]

I agree that he is part of the establishment and I should've phrased it differently. I meant that Hillary and co. are a much more controllable asset to those who back her and will likely provide more of the same ol' gov. we've gotten used to (listening to anyone with the $ to do so). Trump on the other hand is much more volatile and less likely to pander to interests that don't support his type of wealth (real estate, various businesses, etc.) which might to our benefit as he might just actually make some changes that step on the toes of the mega wealthy. On the other hand, he might do none of that but he's a helluva a lot more likely to do it than Hillary would be.

Given the current state of the economy versus where the economy was in 2008 I will gladly take more of the same.

Also, I can't really blame him for avoiding taxes. It seems to be rather common that people who are in the position to dodge taxes, do so. Its unfortunate and an extremely difficult problem to solve but greed is just human nature. I would sooner fault Hillary due to the source of her wealth than I would Trump who acquired his fortune legitimately (mostly) but dodged taxes because the system allowed him to do so.

Assuming you plan to be a dentist, I have an ethical question for you. A patient presents with a lesion which could be filled and they are paying cash. Do you bend the truth a little and tell them they need a crown? It's not technically "illegal" per se, but it is absolutely unethical. Donald Trump may not have done anything illegal, but it was absolutely unethical. I wouldn't vote for an unethical businessman anymore than I would vote for an unethical dentist.

At the end of the day, Trump IS a smart dude (its hard to be a billionaire and not be) and will probably acclimate to the position.

He would have more money today if he took his inheritance and simply invested it in an index fund. He is not that smart, and he is no businessman. His wealth has increased by 300% since 1987 but the market has grown by 1,336% since then. Compare that to Warren Buffet (2,612%) |or Bill Gates (7,173%) who are both Democrats and almost certainly voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Side note: Apparently parentheses with percentage signs and logical operators such as 'and'/'or' will trigger Cloudflare's SQL injection protection and block you from the site... Who'da thunk it?]

To be honest, I'm not sure if he says these wildly crazy things because he knows it resonates with the American people or if he actually believes them. I wouldn't be surprised if this persona he's drummed up is just a tactful play at the lowest common denominator to secure a win.

Absolutely, it is a panis et circenses situation if you will.

Either way it shakes down, it might be useful for us to have a really piss poor president so that the people of this country start waking up and putting people who actually have the people's interest at heart in office. The status quo isn't a good option to continue pursuing.

That sounds like playing with dynamite to me. You could get lucky and not blow your arm off, or you could lose your arm and learn a valuable lesson. Either way is a positive if you are optimistic enough.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Whoa, ok. Lots to unpack here.

1) economy stinks big time right now, and it's been a ridiculously slow stagnation. With intrest rates so artificially low, we are about to have anouther recession. Not to mention the explosion of debt that happened during Obamas presidency. It's been the equivalent of a Drug addict going through severe withdrawal (2008) to just absolutely going ham with drugs to try and stave off said withdrawal. Yeah, it's gonna ease the pain a bit, but ur just kicking that can down the road.

2) Donald trumps taxes. I assume ur not a dentist? Let's say u were and are making a cool 300k. Taxes is like 120k for u, but there is a special dentist loophole that allows you to only pay 20k per year. Are you telling me that you wouldn't take advantage of this tax loophole? If not, you must have a crazy amount of love for the government, who has shown it only hemorages money.

3) I'm glad Trump didn't invest the money in any kind of stock bonds. Instead, he built building and a company that actually employed people and helped lift so many people up.

Trump isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, be he is something different. He is a business man, and we as Americans are getting slammed in this country with not only taxes, but soon to be refugees. We need to be competitive, and we need to put America first for once. Hillary will just accelerate the big "globalism first" plan, not put the interests of America first. She has proven she is willing to sell American secrets for a quick buck.

We are not slaves to the government. We own the government, not the other way around, and the government has failed us and Hillary is selling us, the American people, out. It's time we the people take back our country, just like when the British people took back their country with Brexit. It's time we made America great again, and free again.

Given the current state of the economy versus where the economy was in 2008 I will gladly take more of the same.



Assuming you plan to be a dentist, I have an ethical question for you. A patient presents with a lesion which could be filled and they are paying cash. Do you bend the truth a little and tell them they need a crown? It's not technically "illegal" per se, but it is absolutely unethical. Donald Trump may not have done anything illegal, but it was absolutely unethical. I wouldn't vote for an unethical businessman anymore than I would vote for an unethical dentist.



He would have more money today if he took his inheritance and simply invested it in an index fund. He is not that smart, and he is no businessman. His wealth has increased by 300% since 1987 but the market has grown by 1,336% since then. Compare that to Warren Buffet (2,612%) |or Bill Gates (7,173%) who are both Democrats and almost certainly voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Side note: Apparently parentheses with percentage signs and logical operators such as 'and'/'or' will trigger Cloudflare's SQL injection protection and block you from the site... Who'da thunk it?]



Absolutely, it is a panis et circenses situation if you will.



That sounds like playing with dynamite to me. You could get lucky and not blow your arm off, or you could lose your arm and learn a valuable lesson. Either way is a positive if you are optimistic enough.

 

[Cello]

Whoa, ok. Lots to unpack here.

1) economy stinks big time right now, and it's been a ridiculously slow stagnation. With intrest rates so artificially low, we are about to have anouther recession. Not to mention the explosion of debt that happened during Obamas presidency. It's been the equivalent of a Drug addict going through severe withdrawal (2008) to just absolutely going ham with drugs to try and stave off said withdrawal. Yeah, it's gonna ease the pain a bit, but ur just kicking that can down the road.

By every measure the economy and the nation have improved significantly since 2008.

• Unemployment is down significantly
• The budget deficit is down enormously
• The US is now the world's leading producer of oil which has led to sub-$2 gas (I remember when it hit $4 in 2008 as we were losing our jobs)
• Five bank failures in 2016 to 140 in 2009
• Consumer confidence at 98 from a record low of 25 in 2009
• Less police killed annually than at any time in the last 40 years (crazy, I know)
• You are much more likely to die from terrorism in Europe than in the US

Pretty much everything trended upward at a rapid clip under Bush. Nearly everything trended downward under Obama with exception for the debt, so let's discuss that. I did talk about the explosion of debt under Obama at length earlier in this thread, but I will recap here. Much of the debt was created before Obama's presidency. Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions (more than $4 trillion so far, all unbudgeted), TARP cost a trillion (not to mention trillions in debt forgiveness from the Fed to the nation's banks), and then of course we collectively lost $26 trillion in revenue and assets due to the Great Recession which hit the government's revenue stream very hard and led to the largest budget deficit in history ($1.3 trillion) being signed by Bush and carried onto FY2009 which was Obama's first year in office.

2) Donald trumps taxes. I assume ur not a dentist? Let's say u were and are making a cool 300k. Taxes is like 120k for u, but there is a special dentist loophole that allows you to only pay 20k per year. Are you telling me that you wouldn't take advantage of this tax loophole? If not, you must have a crazy amount of love for the government, who has shown it only hemorages money.

Donald Trump lobbied Congress to create the tax provisions and loopholes he took advantage of. Dentists don't have that kind of political buying power. Imagine for a moment if no one paid their taxes and had Trump's entitlement mindset that our government should provide the goods and services we all depend upon without providing the government some form of incoming revenue. We would essentially be Greece, and we all know how that turned out for them. "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization."

3) I'm glad Trump didn't invest the money in any kind of stock bonds. Instead, he built building and a company that actually employed people and helped lift so many people up.

He defrauded investors, he employed illegal immigrants to construct his towers while speaking out against illegal immigration, he deliberately stiffs his contractors on pay and tells them to take him to court for their money and that they will lose more money via litigation than they are owed by his company, he stiffs his own employees, leaves thousands jobless as he is now with the closure of his AC casino, and his company intentionally refused to rent property to black people. The man declared bankruptcy four separate times and cost US taxpayers millions of dollars in doing so.

Really, there is so much more I could say, and I hope that you appreciate that I am sourcing from a wide variety of publications.

Trump isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, be he is something different.

Hitler and Stalin were something different too. Different does not necessarily equal better.

He is a business man, and we as Americans are getting slammed in this country with not only taxes, but soon to be refugees.

Countries are not businesses. I would be happy to further explore why the two are mutually exclusive, but I have got to meet with my study group soon.

We need to be competitive, and we need to put America first for once.

The United States has always put the United States first. From annihilating natives to enslaving black people and conquering Mexican armies on their own territory to claim the west as our own. In the modern era, our foreign spending is aimed at buying regional influence and securing trade partners / allies. Our humanitarian aid missions are certainly our most generous act, and we are the most generous nation on Earth in that way, but much of what we consider to be humanitarian like "bringing Democracy" to the rest of the world is in fact self serving. Ever notice that we are always bringing democracy to oil rich nations?

Hillary will just accelerate the big "globalism first" plan, not put the interests of America first.

I am not sure what this means.

She has proven she is willing to sell American secrets for a quick buck.

I hear this sentiment often but have not yet seen evidence that it is true. I often wonder what the source of this information is. Are you referring to the false claims that Hillary sold Uranium to Russia for her own personal gain?

We are not slaves to the government. We own the government, not the other way around, and the government has failed us and Hillary is selling us, the American people, out. It's time we the people take back our country, just like when the British people took back their country with Brexit. It's time we made America great again, and free again.

Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and is the final nail in the coffin for the last remnants of a rapidly fading empire. The Pound is tanking and the EU is imposing increasingly strict trade tariffs/taxes on British exports which will now be governed by WTO rules rather than the much friendlier EU trade regulations. The British need Europe more than Europe needs Britain, and the EU is making Britain painfully aware of that fact. Millions of Brits were expressing buyer's remorse when the Pound first tanked way back at the end of June. They will be in a world of hurt when they finally pull out of the EU, if they actually pull out of the EU.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Oh geez, here we go. Buckle up buckaroo!

First, the statistics that are reporting the the economy has "never been better" are fudged to make the numbers look great:

Unemployment: That includes people who have stopped looking for jobs (lowers unemployment) and people who have lost their job and needed to pick up 2 or 3 (net positive).

Budget Deficit: Dude, it doesn't matter if the deficient is down, what matters is the debt. It doesn't matter that I spend 10K less on my credit card last year if my total debt is 170K.

Gas: Yeah, because America has to plead and bend down to Saduia Arabia. We should drill our own oil.

Bank Failures: Not really a ringing endorsement with all the mergers going on, absorbing little banks to form big corrupt banks.

Consumer Confident: Because interest rates are artificially low. Again, its like feeding the guy more drinks when he is hung over. it will bate the hangover, but its gonna make it even worse when he finally comes to.

Police: Wait till next year

Europe: Well, yeah, of course. We haven't brought in the massive amount of immigrants yet from countries that are antithetical to classical liberal views of freedom and democracy.

Obama continued the war in Afghanistan. He also left a vacuum for ISIS.

The Hitler and Stalin argument is so tiresome. It can be applied to anyone who doesn't like someone. Trump has spent his entire life in the private sector trying to please costumers. Comparing the two shows a distinct lack of argument and integrity. Come on dude, you are better than that.

I will remind you that the enslavement of blacks and eradication of Native Americans was perpetuated and encouraged by Andrew Jackson (a democrat) and the democratic party as a whole, and the elimination of slavery was spearheaded by Abraham Lincoln (A Republican). In fact, throughout the course of history, republicans has traditionally fought for civil rights, but democrats kept blocking it.

As far as Trumps business failures, 8 out of every 10 businesses fail. That Trump was able to make a great company is fantastic. The reports that you mentioned have been debunked.

Globalism is the idea that all nations should unite under one global government. It is for open boarders and federalization of everything. Trump is a Nationalist and Hillary is a Globalist. Globalism is bad news. Giving unlimited power to the government is never a good idea.

I think we will have to wait and see for Brexit. The whole European union is steaming with corruption. They have a chance to take their country back.

By every measure the economy and the nation have improved significantly since 2008.

• Unemployment is down significantly
• The budget deficit is down enormously
• The US is now the world's leading producer of oil which has led to sub-$2 gas (I remember when it hit $4 in 2008 as we were losing our jobs)
• Five bank failures in 2016 to 140 in 2009
• Consumer confidence at 98 from a record low of 25 in 2009
• Less police killed annually than at any time in the last 40 years (crazy, I know)
• You are much more likely to die from terrorism in Europe than in the US

Pretty much everything trended upward at a rapid clip under Bush. Nearly everything trended downward under Obama with exception for the debt, so let's discuss that. I did talk about the explosion of debt under Obama at length earlier in this thread, but I will recap here. Much of the debt was created before Obama's presidency. Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions (more than $4 trillion so far, all unbudgeted), TARP cost a trillion (not to mention trillions in debt forgiveness from the Fed to the nation's banks), and then of course we collectively lost $26 trillion in revenue and assets due to the Great Recession which hit the government's revenue stream very hard and led to the largest budget deficit in history ($1.3 trillion) being signed by Bush and carried onto FY2009 which was Obama's first year in office.



Donald Trump lobbied Congress to create the tax provisions and loopholes he took advantage of. Dentists don't have that kind of political buying power. Imagine for a moment if no one paid their taxes and had Trump's entitlement mindset that our government should provide the goods and services we all depend upon without providing the government some form of incoming revenue. We would essentially be Greece, and we all know how that turned out for them. "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization."



He defrauded investors, he employed illegal immigrants to construct his towers while speaking out against illegal immigration, he deliberately stiffs his contractors on pay and tells them to take him to court for their money and that they will lose more money via litigation than they are owed by his company, he stiffs his own employees, leaves thousands jobless as he is now with the closure of his AC casino, and his company intentionally refused to rent property to black people. The man declared bankruptcy four separate times and cost US taxpayers millions of dollars in doing so.

Really, there is so much more I could say, and I hope that you appreciate that I am sourcing from a wide variety of publications.



Hitler and Stalin were something different too. Different does not necessarily equal better.



Countries are not businesses. I would be happy to further explore why the two are mutually exclusive, but I have got to meet with my study group soon.



The United States has always put the United States first. From annihilating natives to enslaving black people and conquering Mexican armies on their own territory to claim the west as our own. In the modern era, our foreign spending is aimed at buying regional influence and securing trade partners / allies. Our humanitarian aid missions are certainly our most generous act, and we are the most generous nation on Earth in that way, but much of what we consider to be humanitarian like "bringing Democracy" to the rest of the world is in fact self serving. Ever notice that we are always bringing democracy to oil rich nations?



I am not sure what this means.



I hear this sentiment often but have not yet seen evidence that it is true. I often wonder what the source of this information is. Are you referring to the false claims that Hillary sold Uranium to Russia for her own personal gain?



Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and is the final nail in the coffin for the last remnants of a rapidly fading empire. The Pound is tanking and the EU is imposing increasingly strict trade tariffs/taxes on British exports which will now be governed by WTO rules rather than the much friendlier EU trade regulations. The British need Europe more than Europe needs Britain, and the EU is making Britain painfully aware of that fact. Millions of Brits were expressing buyer's remorse when the Pound first tanked way back at the end of June. They will be in a world of hurt when they finally pull out of the EU, if they actually pull out of the EU.

 

[jeffk805dent]

Oh geez, here we go. Buckle up buckaroo!

Nice South Park reference

 

[rev_rend]

Oh geez, here we go. Buckle up buckaroo!

etc.

Evidence?

I mean, really, this is the thing that kills me when people in medical professions debate this stuff. We can understand the need for evidence to justify treatment, but in politics or other realms evidence need never make an appearance.

However, it's under Hillary's reset with Russia that we're now on the brink of nuclear war with them plus ISIS is running amok over the world.

FWIW, ISIS is losing territory like gangbusters, especially lately. Just this week they've lost Dabiq and are being driven out of Mosul.

The talk of the Russian reset in this campaign has been ridiculous. During Clinton's tenure, Russia's president was Dmitry Medvedev, who, though loyal to Putin, was a comparatively mellow and amenable guy. Relations with Russia have tanked because Russia's government and economy are a dumpster fire. Putin's foreign adventures are tremendously expensive and between low oil prices and Western sanctions, the economy and state budget are in shambles. Sweeping budget cuts are about to take place, including ~30% reductions in social benefit payments. The most reliable way for Putin to redirect frustration over this is to rail against the United States. And he can go ahead and do that because he also has to cut Russia's defense budget. They can't afford a fight and we don't want one.

 

[751866]

Also, I can't really blame him for avoiding taxes. It seems to be rather common that people who are in the position to dodge taxes, do so. Its unfortunate and an extremely difficult problem to solve but greed is just human nature. I would sooner fault Hillary due to the source of her wealth than I would Trump who acquired his fortune legitimately (mostly) but dodged taxes because the system allowed him to do so.

It's become exceedingly apparent that people who make statements like this lack any insight into the real world, let alone businesses. If someone can legally avoid paying a tax, why shouldn't they (even more so as a businessman, you are supposed to act in the best interest of your shareholders since they are, after all, the owners of the company)? They are entitled to it under the current law. If it were an illegal avoidance of taxes, then this would be a real argument. However, that's not the case. It might be unfortunate, but it is legal and it is available for people to utilize. So, explain how it is greedy to not pay taxes that you're not legally required to pay? Are you (or anyone else making this "tax dodging" argument) really, truly saying you wouldn't (and don't) plan on taking the tax breaks that are legally available to you? If you won't utilize the tax code as you're allowed to, would you share your logic?

I realize you've said that the system has allowed him to, but there's a tone in your post that maybe I'm reading wrong; it came off as if he's done something wrong ("avoiding", "dodging", "unfortunate"). If I read that tone and it wasn't there, then I apologize. There are tons of people I've heard make this silly argument, though. My main contention: there's nothing wrong with what he did on his taxes, unless someone can demonstrate it was illegal; it shouldn't be a talking point to bash him (or anyone who uses the tax code in it's form).

 

[Henry Killinger]

I frequent a church in a part of town with big Hispanic presence. Upstanding families who firmly believe in the values of compassion and civil service. Natural supporters of the GOP, and trump threw their votes do the Dems with his sheltered-teenageresque talk of Mexican immigrants being thieves and rapists.

Narcissists will only get worse if you give them more power. Trump isn't even self made and built up his father's success on the backs of Trump U, multiple bankruptcies, and illegal labor, yet he carries such a huge amount of arrogance.

 

[Cold Front]

Elections are like boxing rounds, except the rounds are in weeks.

I would say last 1-2 weeks (based on SNL skits), the focus was so much on Trump and his blunders with women from the past. So Hillary won those rounds.

Couple of weeks before that, the spot light was on Hillary, getting heat from Trump campaign on various allegations. As a result, Trump edged on the polls on key contested states (Ohio, Indiana, etc).

This week will heavily depend on the final debate, and I think all the chips will be laid on the table from both candidates. This is the final chance for anyone who is having second thoughts to make a decision. Not to mention if there are more media surprises during or after the debate.

I doubt much will happen after this week... many people have already voted, so it will be just down to which candidate will win by what margin. If Hillary wins, it's could be a considerable margin. If Trump wins, it will be like the 2000 closely contested elections, and so - we could have a similar and big mess on our hands.

Don't hold your breaths, neither candidate won't get much done if he/she wins, maybe 20% of what they promised at best.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

I really scratch my head at people who think the economy is great right now. Open your eyes people. Our country's staggering debt load, and the unreal price of education should say a lot about the economy..

 

[rev_rend]

My main contention: there's nothing wrong with what he did on his taxes, unless someone can demonstrate it was illegal; it shouldn't be a talking point to bash him (or anyone who uses the tax code in it's form).

I think the only people conflating legality and propriety are the ones defending him. I also don't think anyone is suggesting that the top-line numbers themselves are evidence of illegality. There are many people who do have a problem with rules that allow this, especially those that allow losses borne by lenders to be claimed for oneself. It is entirely reasonable then to look at what few tax proposals Trump has made and recognize that his economic plans primarily consist of further reducing his tax burdens.

I really scratch my head at people who think the economy is great right now. Open your eyes people. Our country's staggering debt load, and the unreal price of education should say a lot about the economy..

The bolded sentence is internet-ese for "enclosed sentiments are cherry-picked." Look, this shouldn't surprise you a bit. How people feel about the economy doesn't always have to do with the economy.

Please, please, please though... If you want to have a serious discussion about politics and economics, use terms with clearer definitions than "great." There are positive and negative signs in the economy and many things to be worried about that are highly concentrated in certain segments of the population. But unemployment has decreased, we're experiencing growth, and consumer confidence is decent.

 

[DrJeff]

I think the only people conflating legality and propriety are the ones defending him. I also don't think anyone is suggesting that the top-line numbers themselves are evidence of illegality. There are many people who do have a problem with rules that allow this, especially those that allow losses borne by lenders to be claimed for oneself. It is entirely reasonable then to look at what few tax proposals Trump has made and recognize that his economic plans primarily consist of further reducing his tax burdens.



The bolded sentence is internet-ese for "enclosed sentiments are cherry-picked." Look, this shouldn't surprise you a bit. How people feel about the economy doesn't always have to do with the economy.

Please, please, please though... If you want to have a serious discussion about politics and economics, use terms with clearer definitions than "great." There are positive and negative signs in the economy and many things to be worried about that are highly concentrated in certain segments of the population. But unemployment has decreased, we're experiencing growth, and consumer confidence is decent.

Has the REAL unemployment rate actually decreased or is it actually more a function of the fact that now close to 95 million Americans of working age, are no longer in the workforce, thus skewing the numbers? Per Dept of labor statistics on the size of the work force, Since Pres Obama took office in January 2009, almost 3 million people have simply given up looking for work, and the overall size of the workforce has decreased from roughly 66 million to 63 million.

Yes, there are segments of the population and country where the recovery has been solid (arguably many of those segments weren't as adversely affected when the economy tanked 8 year ago), but one certainly with a straight face can't say the the recovery has been equally as good for the entire population as it has been for some.

As for Mr Trump and his taxes.... If what he did, as it appears it was, was completely legal, then why should people be "mad" at him, verses being mad at those who wrote and passed the tax codes that allowed his to do what he did in the first place? I have yet to meet a single person who wants to pay more in taxes than they legally are required to!

 

[751866]

I think the only people conflating legality and propriety are the ones defending him. I also don't think anyone is suggesting that the top-line numbers themselves are evidence of illegality. There are many people who do have a problem with rules that allow this, especially those that allow losses borne by lenders to be claimed for oneself.

I'm not talking about people conflating anything. There are people who are outright saying that he's done something wrong in legally minimizing taxes. There are two main ways they can mean wrong. The first is that they believe he shouldn't be taking legally available deductions and he is violating an ethical or moral standard. The second meaning is that they think he has illegally avoided paying taxes (which I've heard many people state, and I can't blame them when the media just says "he hasn't paid taxes"). The second meaning is, so far, factually untrue. The second meaning might be valid in various groups, but it is legal, and legality, is a separate issue. So again, in the same position, what would these naysayers do? Aside from the hypothetical of what they would do, have they actually refused to take tax breaks that were available to them? If no, why not? As for losses borne by lenders; that's business. You take calculate risks, you negotiate terms, and you accept outcomes. Lenders don't have to make a loan, shareholders don't have to buy shares of stock. People do it of their own accord. As a shareholder, you're an owner in the company and you select management to work in your best interest. When they don't shareholders will act. The principal agent relationship is defined and the agents (management) can enter into transactions on behalf of those shareholders. They should, and usually will, take every chance to maximize shareholder wealth, although misappropriation does occur; paying as little in taxes is one of the ways that the agents of the company attempt to maximize shareholder wealth (and a similar argument is made for leverage as it provides the business with tax shields). A little off topic, I suppose, but there's a lot more to it than, "he didn't pay taxes." Depending on the structure of those businesses he claimed the loss for, the losses may very well flow through his personal tax return (I haven't fully looked into that, so I'm not sure). If they don't (flow to his) he still acted in the best interest of his shareholders to minimize taxes.

It is entirely reasonable then to look at what few tax proposals Trump has made and recognize that his economic plans primarily consist of further reducing his tax burdens.

Sure, that is reasonable, but you have people mechanically saying that he's bad because he's not paying taxes, and I guarantee you that many of them don't know that what's done was perfectly within the rule of law and available to many other people. I know this because I've had this discussion with many people who clearly don't have the background.

 

[Cello]

Because of our debt, we spend $220 billion annually just on interest payments

Yes, it is a big problem and it isn't going away anytime soon unless one of two things happens:

1) We cut the federal budget drastically (GOP proposal)
2) We increase federal revenue significantly (Democratic proposal)

From there, you have to stay in the green long enough to pay down your entire debt burden. Paying off the national debt could actually pose serious financial risks to the global economy. In fact, the government was actually worried about the long-term effects to global financial markets due to the budget surplus created under the Clinton administration in 2000.

Bush took the GOP approach while simultaneously bailing out large banks during a recession via the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The loss of revenue from the recession cost the government trillions in revenue all while the Bush administration was spending trillions and lowering interest rates to stabilize the economy. When your patient is bleeding out on the table, you take drastic measures. The Bush administration did what it thought best to stabilize the patient, and a lot of people (myself included) think they could have handled things better. That said, I appreciate the difficulty and enormity of the circumstances they faced, and I am glad it was not

Has the REAL unemployment rate actually decreased or is it actually more a function of the fact that now close to 95 million Americans of working age, are no longer in the workforce, thus skewing the numbers? Per Dept of labor statistics on the size of the work force, Since Pres Obama took office in January 2009, almost 3 million people have simply given up looking for work, and the overall size of the workforce has decreased from roughly 66 million to 63 million.

Yes, there are segments of the population and country where the recovery has been solid (arguably many of those segments weren't as adversely affected when the economy tanked 8 year ago), but one certainly with a straight face can't say the the recovery has been equally as good for the entire population as it has been for some.

As for Mr Trump and his taxes.... If what he did, as it appears it was, was completely legal, then why should people be "mad" at him, verses being mad at those who wrote and passed the tax codes that allowed his to do what he did in the first place? I have yet to meet a single person who wants to pay more in taxes than they legally are required to!

me who had to call the shots.

Obama took an approach which was halfway between 1 and 2. He signed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act into law, granting working Americans below a certain level of income a tax rebate which was intended to stimulate spending and helped to ease the fallout of the recession. Many people believe that this stimulus failed to live up to expectations, but I disagree, as did many studies at the time which looked at the after-effects of the stimulus. Note that the stimulus was never going to bring back jobs immediately, it was intended to get consumers spending again to drive the economy and improve the long-term outlook so that employers would eventually add jobs again. By that measure, I would say that the stimulus worked as advertised.

Trump is proposing to significantly reduce taxes (particularly for people in his income bracket) while simultaneously increasing military spending. The simple math doesn't make sense. In fact, economists estimate that Trump's proposals will cost us $5.3 trillion.

Clinton is more of the same, and as I said above, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We are the strongest economy in the world right now. In 2008 it seemed inevitable that the BRIC countries (Brazil, India, Russia, China) would claim much of the global economy and that the United States had forever lost its status as a global economic superpower. Today, every BRIC nation is struggling with high inflation, massive wealth inequality, and the collapse of entire segments of their economies. Meanwhile, the United States juggernaut surges forward, albeit at a slower pace than most would like. But many prominent economists believe that the United States was fortunate to have experienced a golden age post-WWII which will likely not happen again for a long time. The economic conditions created by the war, and the tremendous advance in economy which lead to increased efficiency in the workforce will likely not be replicated because transformative technology today has the nasty habit of replacing human labor with machine labor entirely. It is only a matter of time before machines come for our jobs it seems, and what do we do then?

Has the REAL unemployment rate actually decreased or is it actually more a function of the fact that now close to 95 million Americans of working age, are no longer in the workforce, thus skewing the numbers? Per Dept of labor statistics on the size of the work force, Since Pres Obama took office in January 2009, almost 3 million people have simply given up looking for work, and the overall size of the workforce has decreased from roughly 66 million to 63 million.

Yes, there are segments of the population and country where the recovery has been solid (arguably many of those segments weren't as adversely affected when the economy tanked 8 year ago), but one certainly with a straight face can't say the the recovery has been equally as good for the entire population as it has been for some.

As for Mr Trump and his taxes.... If what he did, as it appears it was, was completely legal, then why should people be "mad" at him, verses being mad at those who wrote and passed the tax codes that allowed his to do what he did in the first place? I have yet to meet a single person who wants to pay more in taxes than they legally are required to!

64 million? BLS measures the statistic by percentage, did you mean 64%?

I don't think that you could argue that economies are ever as good to everyone equally. Rural counties have long been prone to poverty and decline, cities are where most of the growth takes place and that is a tale as old as this nation.

Mr. Trump and his taxes. Well, as I linked to twice earlier in this thread, Mr. Trump played a leading role in creating the tax benefits he profits so greatly from. His supporters argue that he is a political outsider who will bring real change, yet he is a man who has pulled strings and lined pockets throughout Washington in order to benefit himself. Is that really the guy you want to have the most powerful job in the world? Why would his interests change when he is president?

I really scratch my head at people who think the economy is great right now. Open your eyes people. Our country's staggering debt load, and the unreal price of education should say a lot about the economy..

"Power is an accident arising from the weakness of others." Our nation is still the most powerful on Earth in pretty much every way that matters, and we are currently the last stable market as the EU falters, China is slowing, India has failed to live up to the promises of a decade ago, Brazil is a mess, and Russia is in decline as @rev_rend alluded to above. Is the United States economy great? By historical standards, certainly not. But there is little reason to believe that we will enjoy the golden age of a post-WWII global recovery again anytime in the near future. Perhaps we should hope that such an event never occurs.

It's become exceedingly apparent that people who make statements like this lack any insight into the real world, let alone businesses.

This is really just a political dog whistle which encodes the sentiment "you are a starry-eyed liberal without an ounce of common sense and your naive idealism, while well intentioned, ultimately makes for bad economics."

If someone can legally avoid paying a tax, why shouldn't they (even more so as a businessman, you are supposed to act in the best interest of your shareholders since they are, after all, the owners of the company)? They are entitled to it under the current law.

A law which Trump paid good money to ensure would benefit him and others like him. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right. Just because you can cap it with a crown doesn't mean that you should - legal or not.

If Trump is so willing to benefit himself and his shareholders as a businessman by linking the right political pockets, imagine what he could do for himself and his shareholders as President. Will his priorities be his shareholders or the American people? Besides, his lame 'fiduciary duty' excuse is just plain wrong.

If it were an illegal avoidance of taxes, then this would be a real argument. However, that's not the case. It might be unfortunate, but it is legal and it is available for people to utilize. So, explain how it is greedy to not pay taxes that you're not legally required to pay? Are you (or anyone else making this "tax dodging" argument) really, truly saying you wouldn't (and don't) plan on taking the tax breaks that are legally available to you? If you won't utilize the tax code as you're allowed to, would you share your logic?

Then I never want to hear one of Trump's supporters complain about 'welfare queens' ever again. If you are okay with a billionaire like Trump benefiting from a system he pays nothing into then you have no coherent argument against welfare recipients or disability recipients doing the same.

 

[Cello]

It would take a lifetime to clear up your perpetual confusion. Democrats and Bush republicans have killed this country in the last 15ish years.

That's all you have to offer in response?

 

[GypsyHummus]

@Cello, we are the strongest economy right now because we are the world's reserve currency, not because of the last 8 years of failure of the Obama administration, but because we won World War II.

Nothing in the last 8 years has worked. People are getting slammed with taxes, slammed with unemployment, and are just done. It is time for a change in washington.

Look at the mess the Affordable Care Act is (Obamacare). It is literally imploding on itself as we speak. This is what the left proposed, and your friend buddy democrats had a solid 2 years between 2008-2010 to pass anything they wanted with a democratic senate.

The democrats have failed, despite what the lamestream media has been telling us. Let the other guy have a swing at it. We might actually secure our boarders.

 

[Cello]

You cannot persuade people to believe in something they have emotional ties to. It's very obvious where you stand on the political spectrum. Why would I write out a long post refuting each false claim when it will not influence your perception of politics?

Have you considered that you are emotionally invested in your position?

I started out a gun-loving, off-roading, truck-driving, military obsessed, country boy at heart. I watched Fox News, and I was cheering in class when we dropped the first bombs on Iraq nearly 15 years ago. I used to argue with my dad about his liberal views all the time. "Why shouldn't you ban inappropriate books? Burning the flag should be illegal! Screw the Middle East and Muslims because they are all just terrorists anyway. Just drop a nuke there and be done with it! Mexicans? They just want to take our jobs and benefit from our society without putting any skin in the game! Shame on them! Black people? They need to get over slavery, it has been long enough! Fuel efficiency? That's for pencil-neck liberals, next they'll want our guns! Gay people? That just isn't natural. Welfare? Why? So lazy people can just sit around and do nothing?"

Those are the ridiculous views I am embarrassed to say I harbored before I actually started keeping up with global politics, before I really studied history, and before I made friends with the people I had spoken out against previously. Basically, I thought that way because my friends did, because my teachers did, and because much of my family did. It was going to a large university with outside perspective and also arguing on message boards (formerly for the opposite perspective) that ultimately transformed my way of thinking.

I have been one place, and I later transitioned to another. Some might say that I was conservative, and they might say that I'm now a liberal. What I see myself as is someone who gathers information from as many sources as possible and forms their own opinion based on the best available evidence. I don't ascribe to a single authority, and I certainly don't adhere to the shackles of a predetermined political identity.

If you believe that I have erred in any of my assessments, then I challenge you to either refute them, or accept them. Dismissing the arguments of another without offering evidence for your own does not make you right.

@Cello, we are the strongest economy right now because we are the world's reserve currency, not because of the last 8 years of failure of the Obama administration, but because we won World War II.

And what of the Euro which was rumored to be the rising star in the world of reserve currencies? How did that turn out? How about the Chinese Yuan which promised to displace the Dollar? How is the Yuan doing right now? How about the Pound Stirling or the Canadian Dollar? I'll tell you how they are doing, they are all sinking to the US dollar.

By the way, saying that the United States is strong because it is the world's reserve currency is tantamount to saying that Usain Bolt won the 100m because he is faster than everyone else.

Nothing in the last 8 years has worked. People are getting slammed with taxes, slammed with unemployment, and are just done. It is time for a change in washington.

I am curious. How old were you in 2008? Anyone who is old enough to remember 2008 and how bad it was would hopefully be able to tell the difference to today. $4 gas, lines at food pantries, hundreds of job applications for Walmart, major bank closures almost daily, stores which were regular fixtures that closed up shop and left empty warehouses carcasses strewn across the country, jobless rates which were rising, a dollar which was weakening to the rest of the world's reserve currencies, a stock market with record fluctuations and which dropped to levels not seen in decades, and a nation where foreclosures increased 80% in a single year leaving nearly 1,000,000 homes vacant. There is simply no comparison to today unless you employ some incredible feats of mental gymnastics.

Look at the mess the Affordable Care Act is (Obamacare). It is literally imploding on itself as we speak. This is what the left proposed, and your friend buddy democrats had a solid 2 years between 2008-2010 to pass anything they wanted with a democratic senate.

The democrats have failed, despite what the lamestream media has been telling us. Let the other guy have a swing at it. We might actually secure our boarders.

It is comments like 'lamestream' media which lead people like me to question your entire ethos. You are parroting a certain former Alaskan governor with that phrase, and that is a large part of the problem with making comments such as these. You bandy these coded messages about like weapons, they rally the base and electrify the masses which is precisely why people like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin employ them. 'Obamanauts', 'Hitlery', 'libtards', you guys get to have all of the fun terms and indeed it charges you up, sometimes it makes us on the other side jealous. We see you slinging mud and we think 'why can't we do the same?'. I suppose Michelle Obama said it best when she said, "when they go low, we go high". Compare the value of her words to the rhetorical machinations of Sarah Palin. Enough said I suppose, enjoy the low road while you can because it is costing you this election.

 

[Cello]

I find your characterization of conservative values to be highly stereotypical and offensive.

You were offended by the person I confessed to being during high school? How PC of you.

This will be my last response to you @maga1994 as you are turning out responses mere seconds after I respond with lengthy replies. I see little value in arguing with someone who is interested only in saying things without truly listening.

 

[751866]

This is really just a political dog whistle which encodes the sentiment "you are a starry-eyed liberal without an ounce of common sense and your naive idealism, while well intentioned, ultimately makes for bad economics."

Many people tend to have good intentions that don't work in our current, inefficient and ineffective system.

A law which Trump paid good money to ensure would benefit him and others like him.

Do you have multiple, non-partisan sources to verify that he paid for lobbying on tax loss carry forwards?

Just because it is legal does not mean it is right. Just because you can cap it with a crown doesn't mean that you should - legal or not.

I completely agree that legality and "right" in the moral sense aren't necessarily the same-- this isn't the point, though. Again, my point is that the media and many people complaining about it aren't making the distinction, and many of the people making the argument believe he did something illegal. It should be made clear by the media, to benefit those with less education or understanding, that he didn't do anything illegal. Personal beliefs can be left up to the consumer of the media.

If Trump is so willing to benefit himself and his shareholders as a businessman by linking the right political pockets, imagine what he could do for himself and his shareholders as President. Will his priorities be his shareholders or the American people?

Reasonable question. He wouldn't and can't be president and participate in his company. If you don't believe he would separate the two, then that's okay-- the judgement is yours to make.

Besides, his lame 'fiduciary duty' excuse is just plain wrong.

I'm not saying he has a fiduciary duty. I also don't need to read something from the media to tell you that. I'm speaking from the perspective of corporate finance. The obligation is from a relationship where the shareholders can replace the agent for failure to act in what they believe is in their best interest. I'm not saying he legally had to take it (there wouldn't necessarily be legal recourse), but there is a very well-founded idea in corporate finance that the agents should maximize shareholder wealth-- it's their job. Minimizing taxes is one way to do that.

Then I never want to hear one of Trump's supporters complain about 'welfare queens' ever again.

I'm not well-versed in this argument. Are these "welfare queens" supposed to be the people who are honestly in need of assistance or are they lying on forms about employment searches and intentions to work? (Serious question on the definition.)

If you are okay with a billionaire like Trump benefiting from a system he pays nothing into

As with before, I'll ask you for multiple, non-partisan sources for this. I'm fairly certain hes paid many kinds of taxes, but I'm not making a claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

then you have no coherent argument against welfare recipients or disability recipients doing the same.

Realistically, these are two separate arguments, though. You have to provide proof that he has paid nothing into it. Even at that point, the arguments are different, as I imagine that "welfare queens" refer to a group who are dishonest in their request for assistant and in their attempts to work (and therefore, doing something illegal, as opposed to legal). I'm all for people receiving assistance when they're genuinely in need and legitimately can't work. Unfortunately, though, there is a problem with people who can work and refuse to because it's incredibly easy to get welfare benefits.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't political for me. As I said plenty of times, I'm including anyone in this situation (since political discourse isn't the heart of my intentions). As someone else noted, it's very clear where you stand, I'm trying to have a conversation in the middle.

I'd like to ask you again. Do you, or have you ever, utilized tax breaks that you were legally entitled to, and if so, do you stop to think about whether they're right or wrong (morally speaking)? Do you plan to use the tax law to it's fullest when you're a dentist (presumably with employees, albeit, lacking shareholders, most likely)? If no, why not?

 

[Cello]

Many people tend to have good intentions that don't work in our current, inefficient and ineffective system.

And yet the economy flourishes under democratic presidents. I have gone to the effort to grab right-leaning pubs for you in addition to publications of record.

Do you have multiple, non-partisan sources to verify that he paid for lobbying on tax loss carry forwards?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...to-loosen-tax-rules-in-early-1990s-1475786072
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ive-real-estate-developers-bigger-tax-breaks/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

I completely agree that legality and "right" in the moral sense aren't necessarily the same-- this isn't the point, though. Again, my point is that the media and many people complaining about it aren't making the distinction, and many of the people making the argument believe he did something illegal. It should be made clear by the media, to benefit those with less education or understanding, that he didn't do anything illegal. Personal beliefs can be left up to the consumer of the media.

Hillary never said he did anything illegal. She said he did something wrong. I agree with her. She should know, she apologized for doing something wrong herself.

Reasonable question. He wouldn't and can't be president and participate in his company. If you don't believe he would separate the two, then that's okay-- the judgement is yours to make.

Has he given you any reason to think that he will?

I'm not saying he has a fiduciary duty. I also don't need to read something from the media to tell you that. I'm speaking from the perspective of corporate finance. The obligation is from a relationship where the shareholders can replace the agent for failure to act in what they believe is in their best interest. I'm not saying he legally had to take it (there wouldn't necessarily be legal recourse), but there is a very well-founded idea in corporate finance that the agents should maximize shareholder wealth-- it's their job. Minimizing taxes is one way to do that.

You have a degree in finance? You seem well versed in this. Who are the shareholders in a privately held company like Trump Organization?

I'm not well-versed in this argument. Are these "welfare queens" supposed to be the people who are honestly in need of assistance or are they lying on forms about employment searches and intentions to work? (Serious question on the definition.)

Welfare queen is a pejorative used to describe anyone (typically women) who collect welfare unnecessarily.

I will give you an example. A former coworker of mine had a girlfriend and they had three children together. They did not marry, because she could only collect welfare benefits if she was a single mom. It is unethical in my eyes, and I told him that on numerous occasions. But it is no more illegal or unethical than Donald Trump not paying taxes.

As with before, I'll ask you for multiple, non-partisan sources for this. I'm fairly certain hes paid many kinds of taxes, but I'm not making a claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

Proof of what? That he didn't pay taxes for 18 years? He admitted to it in the 2nd debate. In the 1st debate he said that he was 'smart' for not paying taxes after his tax documents were leaked to the NY Times.

Realistically, these are two separate arguments, though. You have to provide proof that he has paid nothing into it. Even at that point, the arguments are different, as I imagine that "welfare queens" refer to a group who are dishonest in their request for assistant and in their attempts to work. I'm all for people receiving assistance when they're genuinely in need and legitimately can't work. Unfortunately, though, there is a problem with people who can work and refuse to because it's incredibly easy to get welfare benefits.

Everyone pays taxes. Trump's argument is that he didn't pay federal taxes, but he pays payroll tax, corporate taxes (I doubt it, would love to see the details on that), property taxes, etc.

Welfare recipients pay taxes too. They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they have property), taxes on utilities, food taxes, etc.

I'd also like to point out that this isn't political for me. As I said plenty of times, I'm including anyone in this situation (since political discourse isn't the heart of my intentions). As someone else noted, it's very clear where you stand, I'm trying to have a conversation in the middle.

I find it interesting that it is clear where I stand, as though it isn't clear where everyone who has debated me stands. You can't read this thread and pretend that people haven't taken sides.

I'd like to ask you again. Do you, or have you ever, utilized tax breaks that you were legally entitled to, and if so, do you stop to think about whether they're right or wrong? Do you plan to use the tax law to it's fullest when you're a dentist (presumably with employees, albeit, lacking shareholders, most likely)? If no, why not?

The fallacy of this logic is in assuming that whatever I as a middle-income earner could do would be comparable to Trump's $916 million tax writeoff. Have I ever NOT paid any taxes? No. I suppose that's the problem then isn't it? Even when I was making $15,000 per year as a college student I still paid taxes while Donald Trump paid $0 for 18 years.

 

[GypsyHummus]

The difference @Cello is that this isn't a choice between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are no longer fit for purpose. What this is about is Globalism vs Nationalism.

Hillary is bad news dude. All one has to do is see the reports on the clinton foundation and how they stiffed Haiti. Do not push that button for them. Take the Red pill and exit the Matrix.

 

[Cello]

You have two choices whether you like it or not. Change the paradigm if you can, but in the meantime you are bound by the conventions of American democracy.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

You have two choices whether you like it or not. Change the paradigm if you can, but in the meantime you are bound by the conventions of American democracy.

So you want lower wages, less autonomy and to spend more money into taxes? I can't figure out why any (future) healthcare provider would be a Democrat.

 

[Cello]

So you want lower wages, less autonomy and to spend more money into taxes? I can't figure out why any (future) healthcare provider would be a Democrat.

How do you plan to reduce the debt while reducing taxes? That is precisely the formula that got us into trouble under Reagan and again under Bush.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

How do you plan to reduce the debt while reducing taxes? That is precisely the formula that got us into trouble under Reagan and again under Bush.

Pretty easy. Cut spending. We see very easily that raising taxes and skyrocketing debt can happen. Look at Obama's presidency. Spending is what gets you into/out of debt.

 

[Cello]

Trump promised to raise military spending. What cuts has he proposed? The military is one of our largest expenditures already. As I said earlier, the simple math doesn't check out. He is proposing massive tax cuts, a significant boost to military spending, and yet somehow the debt will be reduced?

 

[GypsyHummus]

Trump promised to raise military spending. What cuts has he proposed? The military is one of our largest expenditures already. As I said earlier, the simple math doesn't check out. He is proposing massive tax cuts, a significant boost to military spending, and yet somehow the debt will be reduced?

This might come as a shock, but there are other areas that America spends money on other than military.

Take for example education. Or healthcare. Actually, military is 2nd to last on spending, next to welfare

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Trump promised to raise military spending. What cuts has he proposed? The military is one of our largest expenditures already. As I said earlier, the simple math doesn't check out. He is proposing massive tax cuts, a significant boost to military spending, and yet somehow the debt will be reduced?

Plenty of places. Go look at his website. You're really getting off topic. I wasn't talking about trump. You didn't seem to like the idea of corporate takeover of dentistry, but by voting Democrat you're advocating for a socialized health care future for yourself. There's corporate on steroids right there. With less pay and higher tax.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

This might come as a shock, but there are other areas that America spends money on other than military.

Take for example education. Or healthcare. Actually, military is 2nd to last on spending, next to welfare

Perfect. We'll make the welfare leeches get a job. That's the best way to cut spending and put our country on the right track. Raising taxes and government dependence will do just the opposite.

 

[Cello]

This might come as a shock, but there are other areas that America spends money on other than military.

Take for example education. Or healthcare. Actually, military is 2nd to last on spending, next to welfare

And which of those has Trump proposed? By the way, military is the 3rd largest expenditure:

I will also add that it is ironic that you are suggesting that Trump cut education spending. That will mean an increase in student loan burden for you as a future dental student.

Plenty of places. Go look at his website. You're really getting off topic. I wasn't talking about trump. You didn't seem to like the idea of corporate takeover of dentistry, but by voting Democrat you're advocating for a socialized health care future for yourself. There's corporate on steroids right there. With less pay and higher tax.

Plenty of places, but where? Donald Trump has not proposed any significant cuts to my knowledge which is why economists expect his economic proposals to cost the United States $5.3 trillion. Here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/19/trump-tax-plan-may-cost-1-5-trillion-more-than-says.html

"Should Trump allow pass-throughs to be taxed at 15 percent -- instead of the 33 percent that many otherwise would be assessed -- his plan would cost $5.9 trillion over 10 years, the analysis found. That's $1.5 trillion more than Trump predicts."

http://time.com/4503404/donald-trump-national-debt-trillion/

"According to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump’s plans would contribute $5.3 trillion dollars to the national debt. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plans, by comparison, would only increase the debt by $200 billion."

I am for the side that will cost us less money.

Perfect. We'll make the welfare leeches get a job. That's the best way to cut spending and put our country on the right track. Raising taxes and government dependence will do just the opposite.

They're not doing anything illegal, they are just taking advantage of existing laws.

 

[751866]

And yet the economy flourishes under democratic presidents.

It's pretty hard to say that the president is responsible for a lot of things at the time he sits (despite what people think). There have been great republican and great democratic presidents, but often, the effect of one rolls forward. There's usually a lag in the economy's response to things that will truly impact it.

I have gone to the effort to grab right-leaning pubs for you in addition to publications of record.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...to-loosen-tax-rules-in-early-1990s-1475786072
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ive-real-estate-developers-bigger-tax-breaks/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

I don't recall asking for right-bias. I asked for non-partisan. It's funny that you've assumed I'm on the right because I disagree with you (if I agreed with you, you wouldn't have offered to find "right-leaning" sources). I hadn't looked into this, but it doesn't surprise me. The problem would lie with politicians that he, or anyone for that matter, is able to essentially pay for favors.

Hillary never said he did anything illegal. She said he did something wrong. I agree with her. She should know, she apologized for doing something wrong herself.

I didn't mention Hillary (another instance where you've brought in something that I've never said). I'm specifically talking about the media injecting their opinion as a way to influence the public's belief. There are some smart people in the media, so it's interesting that they choose such deceptive phrases at times. The media is there to report facts; Trump was legally able to avoid paying certain taxes for a certain period of time (right or wrong is up to the individual). It's good that she apologized.

Has he given you any reason to think that he will?

I like to take the approach of innocent until proven guilty. In a similar, but slightly different light, I put value in the fact that he is far less susceptible (in theory) to "owing" favors to politicians and companies because he hasn't taken tons of their money. We could make the argument that politicians that accept donations when running for public office are scammers and don't deserve a shot if they didn't do what they said they would (especially given that they have far greater control over outcomes than someone running a business)...you know, in the way that people say Trump (or other businessmen) are essentially scam artists taking risks with the money of others (which by the way, you don't have to trust them with your money...compare that to the way the government works, you effectively have no choice but to give them money that they can squander-- and you still have to give them more).

You have a degree in finance? You seem well versed in this.

Something like that...

Who are the shareholders in a privately held company like Trump Organization?

Privately held more or less means it's not publicly traded (not necessarily that only one person owns it). I couldn't tell you who they were at the time, they may be different than now (Wiki says 100% DT for Trump Organization itself). According to Google, it's an LLC. Take a look at the tax treatment of an LLC for federal income taxes and you'll see that things can flow through the owner(s) personal tax returns. It's also important to consider the other parties that benefit from the success of the company, more generally, the stakeholders (employees, people who benefit from the product or service of the business). I mean, it's really a much broader picture than it first appears. The other issue people bring up with DT or other businesses is the bankruptcies (which the rate is quite low), but bankruptcy is very often a strategic move that provides benefits to some stakeholders without everyone losing. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/Again, this isn't specifically about Trump, but I'm using this as a fact check and a general way to point out that the media does a terrible job at informing the public (as a general rule). I've heard the "coward who bankrupt a business" line to refer to many business people aside from Trump (my bias, as you'll hopefully see, is more about business than it is politics-- as I've said, I'm trying to talk from the middle of the aisle).

Welfare queen is a pejorative used to describe anyone (typically women) who collect welfare unnecessarily.

If it's not illegal (i.e. they are being entirely truthful and not being intentionally deceitful), then it's not illegal; morality, again, is up to the individual.

I will give you an example. A former coworker of mine had a girlfriend and they had three children together. They did not marry, because she could only collect welfare benefits if she was a single mom. It is unethical in my eyes, and I told him that on numerous occasions. But it is no more illegal or unethical than Donald Trump not paying taxes.

I don't know the specifics of the tax code, but it sounds like they may have been better off claiming a dependent spouse and children, but I don't know that for sure. If she didn't do anything illegal, then she's entitled to utilize it as the system has provided it.

Proof of what? That he didn't pay taxes for 18 years? He admitted to it in the 2nd debate. In the 1st debate he said that he was 'smart' for not paying taxes after his tax documents were leaked to the NY Times.

Word precision; does he pay nothing at all or nothing in federal taxes... Proof he pays nothing into the system is what I'm asking for, because that's what you said. I believe he admitted to utilizing that tax break. I don't think he said how much of it or for how long (I would assume maximally, but usually there's a limit how far forward you can carry the loss). I think anyone who minimizes their taxes within the law is using the system in a smart manner. After all, the government is quite wasteful.

Everyone pays taxes. Trump's argument is that he didn't pay federal taxes, but he pays payroll tax, corporate taxes (I doubt it, would love to see the details on that), property taxes, etc.

So, he pays some taxes.

Welfare recipients pay taxes too. They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they have property), taxes on utilities, food taxes, etc.

Again, I don't think I brought up welfare recipients, and I explained why I think they're different discussions. I have no problem with helping people who genuinely need help.

I find it interesting that it is clear where I stand, as though it isn't clear where everyone who has debated me stands. You can't read this thread and pretend that people haven't taken sides.

I can tell people have taken sides. I have too, but mine is on the context of business (not politics), which I tried to convey several times.

The fallacy of this logic is in assuming that whatever I as a middle-income earner could do would be comparable to Trump's $916 million tax writeoff.

That's not my assumption. My assumption is that you do have tax exemptions available to you, and they can benefit you accordingly (whether you're making tons of money or not). That's how they're comparable- not everyone has the same options for deductions or exemptions, but they have some that fit their situation and they can use them. By making it purely about the magnitude, it becomes more about "not fair because he or she has more" and less about "right and wrong."

Have I ever NOT paid any taxes? No. I suppose that's the problem then isn't it? Even when I was making $15,000 per year as a college student I still paid taxes while Donald Trump paid $0 for 18 years.

Well, the problem is that you (as an entity for tax purposes) did not suffer a loss that would provide you with that benefit. If you look up how LLCs or sole proprietorships are treated for tax purposes (as I suggested earlier), you'll see that why he (or a similar person) could pay zero in taxes after he (or a similar person) suffered a loss. You'd be allowed the same if you were in his shoes. I would be incredibly surprised if you truly wouldn't utilize it.

I'm going to have to say this is the last long-winded post I can make on this. Too much of a pain to proof read, and I really think a better understanding would benefit people in general for interpreting the "facts" the media sets out on the economy and business (and equally, the media needs to stop injecting their nonsense into a "report").

 

[Panis et Circenses]

@Cello Translation: according to some liberals, hillary's plan will cost less. Oh yeah, kind of like how liberals and your beloved president said obamacare would reduce average rates by $2,500 for a typical family per year Families have seen an increase by 2,976 on average. And where has it been said that Trump will make school more expensive? Where did you pull that one out of?

 

[Cello]

Look at the mess the Affordable Care Act is (Obamacare). It is literally imploding on itself as we speak. This is what the left proposed, and your friend buddy democrats had a solid 2 years between 2008-2010 to pass anything they wanted with a democratic senate.

I forgot to reply to this specific passage. That is not how Congress works. The Senate and the House operate independently. From 2008-2010 Democrats controlled the Senate, the Republicans controlled the House. Obama never enjoyed a majority Congress during his presidency and the Republicans voted down virtually every bill sent to them by the president and passed on by the Senate. I would be happy to discuss the principles of passing a bill through Congress if you wish to discuss this further.

It's pretty hard to say that the president is responsible for a lot of things at the time he sits (despite what people think). There have been great republican and great democratic presidents, but often, the effect of one rolls forward. There's usually a lag in the economy's response to things that will truly impact it.

Late in Bush's term we had a crash. Halfway through Obama's term we have a continued recovery.

I don't recall asking for right-bias. I asked for non-partisan. It's funny that you've assumed I'm on the right because I disagree with you (if I agreed with you, you wouldn't have offered to find "right-leaning" sources). I hadn't looked into this, but it doesn't surprise me. The problem would lie with politicians that he, or anyone for that matter, is able to essentially pay for favors.

I apologize, the reason I provided the right-wing sources in addition to the others is because you asked for 'non-partisan' which typically means 'not the liberal media' when said by other posters.

I didn't mention Hillary (another instance where you've brought in something that I've never said). I'm specifically talking about the media injecting their opinion as a way to influence the public's belief. There are some smart people in the media, so it's interesting that they choose such deceptive phrases at times. The media is there to report facts; Trump was legally able to avoid paying certain taxes for a certain period of time (right or wrong is up to the individual). It's good that she apologized.

True, you did not say anything about Hillary, but as this is a Hillary vs. Trump thread I thought I would bring it back to her. I am not aware of people in the media accusing Trump of doing something illegal. I have certainly heard pundits on both sides debate the ethics of not paying taxes, but the legality has not been discussed from what I have heard.

I like to take the approach of innocent until proven guilty. In a similar, but slightly different light, I put value in the fact that he is far less susceptible (in theory) to "owing" favors to politicians and companies because he hasn't taken tons of their money. We could make the argument that politicians that accept donations when running for public office are scammers and don't deserve a shot if they didn't do what they said they would (especially given that they have far greater control over outcomes than someone running a business)...you know, in the way that people say Trump (or other businessmen) are essentially scam artists taking risks with the money of others (which by the way, you don't have to trust them with your money...compare that to the way the government works, you effectively have no choice but to give them money that they can squander-- and you still have to give them more).

When someone is running for president you must know what you are in for. It is the same for someone applying for a job. You don't just hire someone hoping that they don't have 3 felony convictions in their recent past. You ask them to disclose that to you. We should expect the same from our president. Will their financial interests cloud their judgment and how will they ensure that they keep the American people as their top priority? This is the most important job application in the world.

I don't see the government as scammers. As I quoted earlier, "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization." Could our government be less bureaucratic and more responsible with our money? Sure. Making the necessary changes is hard, but I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Something like that...
Privately held more or less means it's not publicly traded (not necessarily that only one person owns it). I couldn't tell you who they were at the time, they may be different than now (Wiki says 100% DT for Trump Organization itself). According to Google, it's an LLC. Take a look at the tax treatment of an LLC for federal income taxes and you'll see that things can flow through the owner(s) personal tax returns. It's also important to consider the other parties that benefit from the success of the company, more generally, the stakeholders (employees, people who benefit from the product or service of the business). I mean, it's really a much broader picture than it first appears. The other issue people bring up with DT or other businesses is the bankruptcies (which the rate is quite low), but bankruptcy is very often a strategic move that provides benefits to some stakeholders without everyone losing. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/Again, this isn't specifically about Trump, but I'm using this as a fact check and a general way to point out that the media does a terrible job at informing the public (as a general rule). I've heard the "coward who bankrupt a business" line to refer to many business people aside from Trump (my bias, as you'll hopefully see, is more about business than it is politics-- as I've said, I'm trying to talk from the middle of the aisle).

Let's go with what you have said above and assume that Trump is acting in accordance with the law and merely looking out for the best interests of his LLC (which is essentially himself and his family if I am not mistaken).

Ethics aside for a moment, what do you think Obama's opponents would say about Obama, or Hillary Clinton's opponents would say if the shoe was on the other foot? Can you imagine the political fallout if it came to light that Hillary Clinton hasn't paid federal income taxes in 2 decades? I am certain that it would end her campaign. The double standard is what I find particularly frustrating.

If it's not illegal (i.e. they are being entirely truthful and not being intentionally deceitful), then it's not illegal; morality, again, is up to the individual.

I don't know the specifics of the tax code, but it sounds like they may have been better off claiming a dependent spouse and children, but I don't know that for sure. If she didn't do anything illegal, then she's entitled to utilize it as the system has provided it.

Of course this establishes a dangerous precedent. As soon as the masses catch wind that the wealthy are getting away with not paying their taxes, it may catch on. Just look at Greece. You have a nation of tax evaders which ended up sending their economy into a tailspin. How do you pay your police, firefighters, schools, infrastructure bills, soldiers, etc. if people just stop paying taxes, or figure out ways around them? More importantly perhaps, why should any of us have to pay federal income taxes when a billionaire does not?

Word precision; does he pay nothing at all or nothing in federal taxes... Proof he pays nothing into the system is what I'm asking for, because that's what you said. I believe he admitted to utilizing that tax break. I don't think he said how much of it or for how long (I would assume maximally, but usually there's a limit how far forward you can carry the loss). I think anyone who minimizes their taxes within the law is using the system in a smart manner. After all, the government is quite wasteful.

The government pays soldiers, police officers, postal workers, teachers, etc. I don't think that is wasteful, and it is impossible without tax revenue.

So, he pays some taxes.

Again, I don't think I brought up welfare recipients, and I explained why I think they're different discussions. I have no problem with helping people who genuinely need help.

Then my response was not intended for you, rather for those who say that Trump is not breaking any laws and was smart to take advantage of the tax code while simultaneously condemning welfare recipients for misrepresenting their financial situation in order to maximize their benefits. The folks that @Panis et Circenses refers to above as 'welfare leeches'.

I can tell people have taken sides. I have too, but mine is on the context of business (not politics), which I tried to convey several times.

And that is fine, but I will again state that you can not run a nation the way you run a business.

That's not my assumption. My assumption is that you do have tax exemptions available to you, and they can benefit you accordingly (whether you're making tons of money or not). That's how they're comparable- not everyone has the same options for deductions or exemptions, but they have some that fit their situation and they can use them. By making it purely about the magnitude, it becomes more about "not fair because he or she has more" and less about "right and wrong."

How exactly would you justify billionaires not having to pay taxes while middle-income earners do? If I make $45,000 per year it hurts me a lot to give up $10,000 - $15,000 in taxes each year. Yet I am paying more taxes than a billionaire. Does he need the money more than me and my family?

Well, the problem is that you (as an entity for tax purposes) did not suffer a loss that would provide you with that benefit. If you look up how LLCs or sole proprietorships are treated for tax purposes (as I suggested earlier), you'll see that why he (or a similar person) could pay zero in taxes after he (or a similar person) suffered a loss. You'd be allowed the same if you were in his shoes. I would be incredibly surprised if you truly wouldn't utilize it.

The question is, why should he have that ability. The ethical debacle Trump finds himself in is that he personally lobbied Congress to allow him the tax provisions he took advantage of. This is not some happy accident of the tax code that he merrily exploited due to governmental stupidity. This man is a virus, he penetrated into the social fabric and hijacked the machinery to generate more for himself which he used to further invade the social fabric and tip the scales in his favor. His behavior is not that of a well-meaning businessman looking to protect the interests of his LLC (himself and his family), rather it was the behavior of a man who was intent upon rigging the game in his favor. That is not the kind of man I want in the White House.

@Cello Translation: according to some liberals, hillary's plan will cost less. Oh yeah, kind of like how liberals and your beloved president said obamacare would reduce average rates by $2,500 for a typical family per year Families have seen an increase by 2,976 on average. And where has it been said that Trump will make school more expensive? Where did you pull that one out of?

"According to some liberals"

Really? Fox News, a well-known conservative media organization cites a report which even they refer to as nonpartisan and your best response is this?

Look, I am all for debating people who actually bring arguments to the table. You have consistently failed to address the vast majority of my arguments, and those which you do respond to you often don't read which is a trend I have seen from you on other threads as well.

Where did I pull that one out of? The federal government is currently providing more financial backing to universities than state governments are. If you desire to cut the measly education budget (6% of discretionary spending to the military's 54%) then you will have to endure further tuition rate hikes. Schools are already blaming rising tuition rates on a lack of support from state governments, and now you want the feds to cut education too?

Everyone wants to cut a program, as long as it's not one that they like. At least democrats are honest about having to spend more to do more. Trump is arguing that he will spend more money while cutting taxes and has offered absolutely no tangible means of doing so. You seem to be taking his words at face value.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

@Cello
I just have better things to do with my life than respond to inflammatory liberals with responses the size of a novel.

FYI, I hate fox news. I'm independent and hate all mainstream media. Liberals championed Obamacare, conservatives resisted it. I don't understand your logic there. By the way now both Hillary and Bill Clinton are trashing obamacare as well, funny stuff.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Well, he can't propose any of those cuts to the public because they would be wildly unpopular. If you cut social security or Medicare (which started off with good intentions, but is quickly becoming too much to bear) the seniors (an incredibly strong voting block) will just not vote for that person. Once he is in, he might be able to have more wiggle room. He is a smart guy, he has had to make cuts to his business before to survive.

That being said, true conservatives (not republicans, those spineless worms) are not unreasonable, I would be for a temporary increase in taxes if a proportionate amount was cut from taxes. I would also be in YUGE support of a flat tax of 10%. This would give people who work hard so much more money, and if there were greater incentives to save money, then people wouldn't need to worry about social security or Medicare, they could save up for old age. Think about it, as a dentist only having to pay 15k out of your gross income of 150k instead of 50k/year. For the 40 years I'd work, I'd make so much more money and could save it. And pay off my student loans quicker.

I personally feel like cutting federal funding of student loans is a good idea. Getting the government out of the student loan program might actually help with lowering the crazy amount of inflation in tuition across all spectrums. It will ensure that people aren't going to college seeking worthless degrees in gender studies and the like, only ending up with a job at Starbucks after taking out an $80k+ loan. If the government isn't handing the loans out like candy to any 18 year old with half a brain (as I was back in the day) we would have a lot more students graduating with Accounting and engineering degrees and not a student loan problem.

And which of those has Trump proposed? By the way, military is the 3rd largest expenditure:

I will also add that it is ironic that you are suggesting that Trump cut education spending. That will mean an increase in student loan burden for you as a future dental student.




Plenty of places, but where? Donald Trump has not proposed any significant cuts to my knowledge which is why economists expect his economic proposals to cost the United States $5.3 trillion. Here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/19/trump-tax-plan-may-cost-1-5-trillion-more-than-says.html

"Should Trump allow pass-throughs to be taxed at 15 percent -- instead of the 33 percent that many otherwise would be assessed -- his plan would cost $5.9 trillion over 10 years, the analysis found. That's $1.5 trillion more than Trump predicts."

http://time.com/4503404/donald-trump-national-debt-trillion/

"According to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump’s plans would contribute $5.3 trillion dollars to the national debt. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s plans, by comparison, would only increase the debt by $200 billion."

I am for the side that will cost us less money.



They're not doing anything illegal, they are just taking advantage of existing laws.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Well, he can't propose any of those cuts to the public because they would be wildly unpopular. If you cut social security or Medicare (which started off with good intentions, but is quickly becoming too much to bear) the seniors (an incredibly strong voting block) will just not vote for that person. Once he is in, he might be able to have more wiggle room. He is a smart guy, he has had to make cuts to his business before to survive.

That being said, true conservatives (not republicans, those spineless worms) are not unreasonable, I would be for a temporary increase in taxes if a proportionate amount was cut from taxes. I would also be in YUGE support of a flat tax of 10%. This would give people who work hard so much more money, and if there were greater incentives to save money, then people wouldn't need to worry about social security or Medicare, they could save up for old age. Think about it, as a dentist only having to pay 15k out of your gross income of 150k instead of 50k/year. For the 40 years I'd work, I'd make so much more money and could save it. And pay off my student loans quicker.

I personally feel like cutting federal funding of student loans is a good idea. Getting the government out of the student loan program might actually help with lowering the crazy amount of inflation in tuition across all spectrums. It will ensure that people aren't going to college seeking worthless degrees in gender studies and the like, only ending up with a job at Starbucks after taking out an $80k+ loan. If the government isn't handing the loans out like candy to any 18 year old with half a brain (as I was back in the day) we would have a lot more students graduating with Accounting and engineering degrees and not a student loan problem.

Everything you said is spot on. I totally agree with the Republicans being spineless. It's unreal to me how so many of those establishment idiots can't even back the nominee of their own party.

I also agree that the government should have not gotten involved with student loans. They ought to at least cap the amount of which you can borrow. The schools have a blank check to charge whatever they want right now. That's why you have people graduating with 480k debt from dental school.

They should also limit who can get loans for an undergraduate education for majors that can actually get jobs (engineering, computer science, etc) so we don't have the problem you outlined there. That could also limit tuition increases and the debt problem that individuals who get worthless degrees without any plan as to how to use it.

 

[DrJeff]

Everything you said is spot on. I totally agree with the Republicans being spineless. It's unreal to me how so many of those establishment idiots can't even back the nominee of their own party.

I also agree that the government should have not gotten involved with student loans. They ought to at least cap the amount of which you can borrow. The schools have a blank check to charge whatever they want right now. That's why you have people graduating with 480k from dental school.

They should also limit who can get loans for an undergraduate education for majors that can actually get jobs (engineering, computer science, etc) so we don't have the problem you outlined there. That could also limit tuition increases and the debt problem that individuals who get worthless degrees without any plan as to how to use it.

The reality is that the Republican party of today would of died about a decade ago if it wasn't for the passion that the TEA Party movement, which luckily enough for the Establishment of the Republican party, aligned themselves with them. It's been that core, passionate base that has brought out enough votes to both oust sitting Democrats and in some cases Establishment Republicans as well.

The Establishment knows they need the turn out of the TEA party inspired, anti Establishment group of voters, so they pretend, at least up until this Presidential race, to talk like they actually want to shrink the size of government, and CRITICALLY look at programs to see if they have relevancy going froward and if so, how to fix them, as opposed to the longstanding big government view of a problem which tends to be haphazardly throwing more more at a problem with the hopes that it will "fix" itself, and often without metrics to gauge if it actually is improving. Once the Establishment Republicans "used" the votes of TEA party supporters to win election/re-election, the Establishment Republicans quickly lost their talking points about smaller government for a period of time until they had to start worrying about re-election again, then magically the "tough talk" showed back up on the campaign trail, except that more and more now these Establishment Republicans now have a recent voting record that often contradicts their campaign talk. Hence allowing the rise to some extent of Mr Trump often on the basis of his anti Establishment rhetoric, something that disenfranchised voters fed up with Washington politics as normal connected with.

The simple fact, is the Establishment of both parties is "fighting" over who gets to control the now close to 4 TRILLION dollar annual budget and the power that that much money has in-terms of using it not always in ways that is best for the country at large, but more often in ways that will best essentially "bribe" their voter base with the notions of "free stuff" and in other cases with large donors, essentially pay them back for their donations with favorable regulations for their businesses, and then often also include token jobs for some people closely associated with an elected official related to the regulations being imposed to favor donors. That whether one likes it or not, and/or wants to open their eyes up and actually see what our government has become in its quest for more power over the people, IS what is going on in Washington to a huge degree, and to lesser degrees in various State Houses and municipalities all over the country. It's using the peoples money, to control the people, under the false premise that our elected officials are doing us some great favor by giving us back the money that we paid to the government in the form of taxes in the first place - this is where the classic "tax cut" mantra comes into play... In it's basic form, a tax cut is nothing more than the government letting you keep more of YOUR own money. It's not the government giving you a check for $X, money that you never earned/had in the first place (some earned income tax credit situations excluded), the government never had that money in the first place, but acts like it's some incredible gesture when they let you keep more of what was, and always has been yours. The only time a "tax cut" actually costs the government any money, is when they let you keep more of what was always yours, but keep spending like they still have YOUR money. Same thing with tax refunds.... The government is giving you back YOUR money, money that you essentially loaned them at 0% interest over the course of the previous year. If you pay attention to your income taxes, and adjust your with holdings accordingly over the entire calendar year, you may not get a refund check of significant size in the Spring, but you likely will get a larger paycheck every single pay cycle. The government is masterful at using the power of your own money against you, in a way that makes them look like they're always doing you some massive favor - follow the money trail

 

[Daurang]

@Cello
I just have better things to do with my life than respond to inflammatory liberals with responses the size of a novel.

FYI, I hate fox news. I'm independent and hate all mainstream media. Liberals championed Obamacare, conservatives resisted it. I don't understand your logic there. By the way now both Hillary and Bill Clinton are trashing obamacare as well, funny stuff.

Read Wikileaks. Hillary is begging for Obozocare to die so she can move on to the next best thing...government universal healthcare!

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Read Wikileaks. Hillary is begging for Obozocare to die so she can move on to the next best thing...government universal healthcare!

Exactly. Obamacare was an absolute disaster, so their logic: let's move further to the left on this issue! It will end up being more disastrous for everyone involved (doctors and patients), but the second you offer "free stuff" the government dependent masses will flock by the hoards, and the ever-shrinking middle class who is struggling to make ends meet will have no other choice but to grudgingly accept being controlled by the government in yet another aspect of their life.

 

[Cello]

Once the Establishment Republicans "used" the votes of TEA party supporters to win election/re-election, the Establishment Republicans quickly lost their talking points about smaller government for a period of time until they had to start worrying about re-election again, then magically the "tough talk" showed back up on the campaign trail, except that more and more now these Establishment Republicans now have a recent voting record that often contradicts their campaign talk. Hence allowing the rise to some extent of Mr Trump often on the basis of his anti Establishment rhetoric, something that disenfranchised voters fed up with Washington politics as normal connected with.

The problem and the hypocrisy as I see it is that the Tea party wants cuts to programs they don't like, and they want increases to programs they do like. That is no different than liberals, except that liberals are willing to admit that increasing spending will mean an increase in taxes or cuts to programs they are not as fond of. The military is the government, and arguing that we should be increasing military spending while simultaneously arguing that you (as in the Tea party movement, not you specifically) are for smaller government is talking out of both sides of your mouth. At least Rand Paul was consistent on this point and he was unafraid to challenge Ted Cruz that shrinking the government means also shrinking the military.

The simple fact, is the Establishment of both parties is "fighting" over who gets to control the now close to 4 TRILLION dollar annual budget and the power that that much money has in-terms of using it not always in ways that is best for the country at large, but more often in ways that will best essentially "bribe" their voter base with the notions of "free stuff" and in other cases with large donors, essentially pay them back for their donations with favorable regulations for their businesses, and then often also include token jobs for some people closely associated with an elected official related to the regulations being imposed to favor donors.

This is exactly why we have hundreds of Abrams tanks rotting in fields because the military doesn't even want them but they create jobs for some state senator somewhere to campaign on.

That whether one likes it or not, and/or wants to open their eyes up and actually see what our government has become in its quest for more power over the people, IS what is going on in Washington to a huge degree, and to lesser degrees in various State Houses and municipalities all over the country. It's using the peoples money, to control the people, under the false premise that our elected officials are doing us some great favor by giving us back the money that we paid to the government in the form of taxes in the first place - this is where the classic "tax cut" mantra comes into play... In it's basic form, a tax cut is nothing more than the government letting you keep more of YOUR own money. It's not the government giving you a check for $X, money that you never earned/had in the first place (some earned income tax credit situations excluded), the government never had that money in the first place, but acts like it's some incredible gesture when they let you keep more of what was, and always has been yours. The only time a "tax cut" actually costs the government any money, is when they let you keep more of what was always yours, but keep spending like they still have YOUR money. Same thing with tax refunds.... The government is giving you back YOUR money, money that you essentially loaned them at 0% interest over the course of the previous year. If you pay attention to your income taxes, and adjust your with holdings accordingly over the entire calendar year, you may not get a refund check of significant size in the Spring, but you likely will get a larger paycheck every single pay cycle. The government is masterful at using the power of your own money against you, in a way that makes them look like they're always doing you some massive favor - follow the money trail

In an ideal world, any new tax provision would have a sunset clause. After a set period of time, the provision would lapse and have to be voted upon again at a future date. This would help to ameliorate the current process of constantly creating more new taxes without getting rid of old ones, and it would hopefully force the government to consider its budget more closely since even simple tax provisions are often difficult to squeeze through both houses.

Well, he can't propose any of those cuts to the public because they would be wildly unpopular. If you cut social security or Medicare (which started off with good intentions, but is quickly becoming too much to bear) the seniors (an incredibly strong voting block) will just not vote for that person. Once he is in, he might be able to have more wiggle room. He is a smart guy, he has had to make cuts to his business before to survive.

You are saying that the man who says what he means, who represents the 'silent majority', and who promises to bring an outsider's perspective to Washington is doing the exact same thing that every politician before him has done by running a different platform from what they intend to do while in office?

That being said, true conservatives (not republicans, those spineless worms) are not unreasonable, I would be for a temporary increase in taxes if a proportionate amount was cut from taxes.

The first statement is true in my estimation, but the second statement doesn't make sense. Are you saying that a proportional amount should be cut later on, after budget stabilization and paying down the debt? I could certainly get on board with that. National debts don't pay for themselves, and we need people who are honest about the fact that the only way you pay off your debt is to make enough money or cut enough spending (likely both) to do so. Once you have stabilized the budget deficit and national debt then why not reduce taxes on citizens?

I would also be in YUGE support of a flat tax of 10%. This would give people who work hard so much more money, and if there were greater incentives to save money, then people wouldn't need to worry about social security or Medicare, they could save up for old age. Think about it, as a dentist only having to pay 15k out of your gross income of 150k instead of 50k/year. For the 40 years I'd work, I'd make so much more money and could save it. And pay off my student loans quicker.

Flat taxes disproportionately affect low income earners. A single mother earning $20,000 per year ($10/hour) and paying for daycare will be burdened significantly more by a $2,000 tax bill than a dentist earning $150,000 will be a $15,000 tax bill. There is a lower limit to the income a person must earn in order to survive and be healthy in our society. Dentists have significantly more buffer from that lower limit than does an employee at Walmart. As voting blocs go, there are far more Walmart employees standing to benefit from a graduated tax system than there are dentists standing to benefit from a flat tax.

I personally feel like cutting federal funding of student loans is a good idea. Getting the government out of the student loan program might actually help with lowering the crazy amount of inflation in tuition across all spectrums. It will ensure that people aren't going to college seeking worthless degrees in gender studies and the like, only ending up with a job at Starbucks after taking out an $80k+ loan. If the government isn't handing the loans out like candy to any 18 year old with half a brain (as I was back in the day) we would have a lot more students graduating with Accounting and engineering degrees and not a student loan problem.

Before 2010 the government financed only ~1/3 of student loans. After 2010 and landmark legislation from Obama the DoE now finances 100% of direct loans. The reason for this was that private-sector lenders had already backed out of the market (they accounted for ~20% of direct loans in 2006). Student loans were in crisis before the government stepped in. The real problem we face in this nation is an explosion in administrators and litigation. In both education and healthcare we have seen a massive increase in the number of highly paid administrators. Schools which have reduced the number of full professors on staff have seen their administrators increase at a near exponential rate. The same is true in medicine, where administrators are reproducing like mosquitos and reaping larger salaries and benefits while hospital staff (including physicians) see continued declines in their reimbursements / salaries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

'By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more striking, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.'

Of course it also doesn't help that state governments have contributed less of their budgets to universities with each passing year, a cost which is ultimately shouldered by students. I know that the Times piece I linked to disagrees with that assessment, but I do believe it to be a contributing factor.

 

[johnny1967]

Hillary has already won the presidency. She will frack us to death. Trump is a distraction to make her look worth voting for. Or in another words a false dichotomy has been used upon the american people.

 

[751866]

Late in Bush's term we had a crash. Halfway through Obama's term we have a continued recovery.

True, but the president prior to Bush made it incredibly easy for people to get mortgages that shouldn't have been given out due to the risk associated with those borrowers (and the crash was partly due to a massive bubble in housing prices and whacky financial instruments that were created as a result of the "disregulation"). Obama's term is driven by stimulus money and propping up the stock market which people confuse for "recovery" or "real growth". There's a reason the Fed kept pushing back the rate hike-- if you stop pumping a balloon it's going to deflate. It's also important to look at the ways that the government (or any agency) defines it's metrics (a big example is who they include in the unemployment rate).

I apologize, the reason I provided the right-wing sources in addition to the others is because you asked for 'non-partisan' which typically means 'not the liberal media' when said by other posters.

It's not a problem at all.

True, you did not say anything about Hillary, but as this is a Hillary vs. Trump thread I thought I would bring it back to her. I am not aware of people in the media accusing Trump of doing something illegal. I have certainly heard pundits on both sides debate the ethics of not paying taxes, but the legality has not been discussed from what I have heard.

As I've said before, the media has used vague statements that are easily misinterpreted by the consumers as "illegally not paying taxes," which I think is unacceptable given that people often don't think twice about what they hear "on the news". A separate topic, but on the idea of the media being deceitful or vague: there is a video of a CNN reporter (I believe) telling people, more or less, that it is illegal to possess copies of the Wikileaks material, but it's different for the news, so you should just rely on CNN to give you that information (this statement is intentionally misleading and reeks of, "don't do your own research, we will inform you.")

When someone is running for president you must know what you are in for. It is the same for someone applying for a job. You don't just hire someone hoping that they don't have 3 felony convictions in their recent past. You ask them to disclose that to you. We should expect the same from our president. Will their financial interests cloud their judgment and how will they ensure that they keep the American people as their top priority? This is the most important job application in the world.

I agree that you would be foolish not to investigate these things. I think you've got a slightly different argument, though. The job application is something that is verifiable before any decisions are made. The presidency and putting aside personal business is something that you believe the person can or cannot compartmentalize-- the results will play out. I think if we can have faith in the word of career politicians who often don't accomplish what they promise or outright lie, then I think we can believe (or not) that someone will separate their presidential and business duties (as he or she would be required to). It's okay to think he (or someone else) wouldn't do that, but it's not unreasonable to take their word.

I don't see the government as scammers. As I quoted earlier, "I like to pay taxes, with them I buy civilization." Could our government be less bureaucratic and more responsible with our money? Sure. Making the necessary changes is hard, but I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I didn't say you view the government as scammers; I said that we can make a parallel argument (for businessmen playing fast and loose with other people's money) that the government is similarly dishonest or undeserving of a chance because of how often our money is squandered. I haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater, but history and economic principles can outline why a central entity is not an efficient way to determine how assets should be utilized. Look at all the waste in government contracts: they're often very expensive, take longer than they should, and they can often be inferior in quality.

Let's go with what you have said above and assume that Trump is acting in accordance with the law and merely looking out for the best interests of his LLC (which is essentially himself and his family if I am not mistaken).

In a very superficial way, sure, but I'm unsure of the structure of his previous ventures. I can't comment on that. However, I mentioned it before that stakeholders are a broader class (includes shareholders). You'd be hard pressed to support a position that the success of a company doesn't benefit the employees (at the very least). That's real employment.

Ethics aside for a moment, what do you think Obama's opponents would say about Obama, or Hillary Clinton's opponents would say if the shoe was on the other foot? Can you imagine the political fallout if it came to light that Hillary Clinton hasn't paid federal income taxes in 2 decades? I am certain that it would end her campaign. The double standard is what I find particularly frustrating.

Personally, I couldn't care less what other people would say about it. If they were in identical situations, my comments would be the same. Have you heard at all about the oddities surrounding the Clinton Foundation (pay to play politics is a big one, with quite a bit of evidence supporting it). Have you wondered where the Clintons supposedly made their wealth after they reportedly were "dead broke" after leaving the White House (now worth tens of millions, possibly 100 million, from a quick Google search)? The shoe hasn't totally been on the other foot for Hillary Clinton, but there is a shoe, and few media outlets are trying to see if it fits.

Of course this establishes a dangerous precedent. As soon as the masses catch wind that the wealthy are getting away with not paying their taxes, it may catch on. Just look at Greece. You have a nation of tax evaders which ended up sending their economy into a tailspin. How do you pay your police, firefighters, schools, infrastructure bills, soldiers, etc. if people just stop paying taxes, or figure out ways around them? More importantly perhaps, why should any of us have to pay federal income taxes when a billionaire does not?

First, the tax evasion in Greece was far more often illegal in nature, not legal. Two separate issues. There's also strong evidence that Greece was dishonest with it's financial position to come into the EU, and it never got to where it needed to be, which is one reason why things are as they stand. Second, people would still be paying taxes, so these necessary expenditures would still be funded. Third, whether you like it or not, that's what was afforded for them under the law. Businesses do create real jobs, and the tax code tries to support this, but ultimately, it does need an overhaul. The simple reason you and I have to pay federal taxes when some people don't is because we're not entitled to under our circumstances. Again, we haven't encountered a situation that afforded us the ability to do so; if you were, you would take the opportunity (that's how it's fair...remember, fair and equal aren't the same thing-- I'm merely saying it's fair, because anyone in those circumstances is able to use it).

The government pays soldiers, police officers, postal workers, teachers, etc. I don't think that is wasteful, and it is impossible without tax revenue.

I don't think it's wasteful, either. An example of the waste I'm talking about giving a "friend" a government contract when they weren't the best choice.

Then my response was not intended for you, rather for those who say that Trump is not breaking any laws and was smart to take advantage of the tax code while simultaneously condemning welfare recipients for misrepresenting their financial situation in order to maximize their benefits.

I don't see the contradiction here. We've established it was legal if he did have the benefit of not paying federal income tax (some may say morally wrong or right, but it's not the point), and you just said some of the people misrepresent their financial situation to receive welfare. A misrepresentation of the facts is illegal in this case. You can't keep taking apples and trying to make them look like oranges to make a comparison.

And that is fine, but I will again state that you can not run a nation the way you run a business.

I don't see why you would. They're different animals. It certainly is beneficial to actually understand the aspects of business though, because that's how the economy (sort of) works.

How exactly would you justify billionaires not having to pay taxes while middle-income earners do? If I make $45,000 per year it hurts me a lot to give up $10,000 - $15,000 in taxes each year. Yet I am paying more taxes than a billionaire. Does he need the money more than me and my family?

Again, they're not paying "no taxes"; they're paying what they are legally obligated to, just as you are, and just as you would be if you were in their place (it's not like they're allowed the tax exemption or break because they have more...you could be entitled to the same benefit if you fit the same tax code criteria). You're probably not paying more in taxes than the billionaire, although their effective tax rate might be lower. Again, you've come back to the argument of "they have more so they should." Finally, it really depends how you want to define need. What if the tax break allows him to keep several hundred people employed? Is that "better" than one family being squeezed less? I don't have the answers to those questions, and I'm not looking for them here, but I think it's something to think about. It can become incredibly philosophical.

The question is, why should he have that ability. The ethical debacle Trump finds himself in is that he personally lobbied Congress to allow him the tax provisions he took advantage of. This is not some happy accident of the tax code that he merrily exploited due to governmental stupidity. This man is a virus, he penetrated into the social fabric and hijacked the machinery to generate more for himself which he used to further invade the social fabric and tip the scales in his favor. His behavior is not that of a well-meaning businessman looking to protect the interests of his LLC (himself and his family), rather it was the behavior of a man who was intent upon rigging the game in his favor. That is not the kind of man I want in the White House.

He has the ability because the law provided it to him when he met a set of criteria that were created (with or without influence) and you have the same ability if you meet the same criteria in the tax code. When you talk about his company, don't forget the people he employs. I understand your displeasure with him as a candidate. Frankly, they're both suboptimal candidates for various reasons. If you're going to talk about "rigging the game" I implore you to look into the Clinton Foundation, not to mention Wikileaks emails that strongly suggest the DNC essentially screwed Sanders over in favor of Hillary Clinton. The candidates we have absolutely have done things at the expense of others for their gain, albeit in different realms (HRC in politics, DT in business). I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I am saying you should look at both sides of this story. You've certainly looked at one side, so try digging up dirt on the side you support and get a more complete picture for each candidate (if we do want to keep this thread political, as I said, I don't care much for the politics. That doesn't mean I haven't tried to do some digging on both sides.)

I know I said I was done with long posts, but that was really the last one. I hope you look into both sides as heavily as you look into one. The problem with politics is that people don't really research things completely. There's a tremendous amount of confirmation bias (in most things we do), but the best thing we can do is fight our urge to support someone before we've looked into nonpartisan sources (or from both sides) regarding the good and the bad of someone.

Unfortunately, I've gotten a little further from the business aspects that I originally intended...

 

[Apramana]

True, but the president prior to Bush made it incredibly easy for people to get mortgages that shouldn't have been given out due to the risk associated with those borrowers (and the crash was partly due to a massive bubble in housing prices and whacky financial instruments that were created as a result of the "disregulation"). Obama's term is driven by stimulus money and propping up the stock market which people confuse for "recovery" or "real growth". There's a reason the Fed kept pushing back the rate hike-- if you stop pumping a balloon it's going to deflate. It's also important to look at the ways that the government (or any agency) defines it's metrics (a big example is who they include in the unemployment rate).

Interestingly, it appears that policies to promote homeownership were promoted in the Roosevelt, Regan, Clinton, and Bush administrations, so it appears more difficult to assign blame to a single administration or a single party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

Lack of regulation seems to have been one of the major causes of the crisis, and lobbying was cited at the discussion above as a major contributor to that inadequate regulation. Thus, it seems some might attribute this to an issue related to the problem of big money's undue influence in US politics.

While the wealthy in society, of which dentists may be included, might enjoy the benefits of money allowing for increased influence in government through lobbying efforts, it seems that Clinton's campaign has highlighted a desire to get big money out of politics, which is a message promoted by many progressives and those that tend towards "liberal" perspectives.

Trump has made mention of this as well, I believe, but it seems Clinton has made it a more prominent part of her campaign:
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/talk-no-action-clinton-trump-campaign-finance-reform/

However, as mentioned in the Harvard piece, campaign finance is not solely up to the President.

Looking deeper, the Democratic Party Platform for 2016 has a section devoted to their commitment to address campaign finance in a way that allows US citizens to have more equal representation, regardless of personal wealth:
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-co...emocratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf

The Republic Party Platform does not appear to mention this at all:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

I agree that you would be foolish not to investigate these things. I think you've got a slightly different argument, though. The job application is something that is verifiable before any decisions are made. The presidency and putting aside personal business is something that you believe the person can or cannot compartmentalize-- the results will play out. I think if we can have faith in the word of career politicians who often don't accomplish what they promise or outright lie, then I think we can believe (or not) that someone will separate their presidential and business duties (as he or she would be required to). It's okay to think he (or someone else) wouldn't do that, but it's not unreasonable to take their word.

Notably, in the Republican Party Platform, referenced above, their only real statement about campaign finance seems to be this line:
"To guard against foreign involvement in our elections, we call for vigilance regarding online credit card contributions to candidates and campaigns."

Donald Trump's campaign has repeatedly solicited foreign entities for donations, despite being repeatedly warned that doing so is illegal:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ntly-soliciting-foreign-cash-despite-warnings

As we determine whether or not Trump can adequately represent the US, as President, without foreign conflicts of interest, it seems like it would be worthwhile to see some evidence that he is not beholden to foreign interests before we elect him. His unwillingness to release his tax returns prevents us from learning more about his financial obligations, and how they might influence his role as US President:

"We went through Trump’s tweets and found he was very interested in President Obama’s tax returns and foreign money he received, yet Trump still has not allowed the American public to see and examine his own tax returns. It’s especially troubling and necessary given stories swirling about his own financial ties with foreign governments."
https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2016/09/26/what-about-trumps-tax-returns/

With that glaring issue unresolved, can we really be confident that Trump would put US interests first, which would include the interests of US dentists and aspiring dentists?

As Cello mentioned, it seems Trump's professional life has been characterized by a singular focus on self interest and his own success, which does not seem to be the right focus for someone asking to be elected to one of our most prominent public service positions.

As Trump is going through the application process, so to speak, for the President, he seems to have tremendous difficulty fulfilling the standards that voters expect of him as we try to evaluate his professional fitness. As I mentioned, his disregard for campaign regulations, like soliciting foreign donations, makes me concerned that he may make similarly poor, and even illegal, choices as US President.

While evaluating whether or not to give Trump the power of the Presidency, I think that these unanswered questions are disqualifying, especially since it seems more difficult to remove the President from office once elected than it would be to remove an employee from a business, if the business owner were to quickly realize that their new hire were woefully unqualified for the position and a poor representation of the company and its values.

While there are many other topics in this thread that I would love to further discuss, and that I truly appreciate the effort their contributors have invested in bringing them to our attention, when we return to the issue of "The Future of Dentistry," can we really feel confident that a Trump presidency would be better than a Clinton presidency?

Those who lobby for specific tax loopholes seem to be doing so in an attempt to create loopholes that have very specific requirements. So while we might think that the loopholes that Trump used are equally accessible for any taxpayer, they seem fairly specific to someone in his position as a very specific business owner.

In this case, as a real estate developer:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-tax-loophole-real-estate-e17f92522b3e#.2ak3cz5ej

I would think a minority of dentists would be in a position to benefit as significantly from these loopholes, but it would seem that dental corporations would likely be able to, which may not bode well for private practice dentists hoping to compete with the rising corporate giants.

In addition, the student loan crisis seems to be more due to for-profit institutions that public institutions:

"Students loan debt a selective crisis; Majority of recent borrowers and defaulters attend for-profit and non-selective schools"
https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-arti...attended-contributed-to-rising-loan-defaults/

So if we look at the future of dental education, it would seem that efforts to reign in for-profit schools, like a potential "Trump School of Dentistry", would benefit aspiring dentists and new dentists hoping to avoid massive educational debt with little to show for it. Trump University alumni seem very unhappy with the money they invested there, for example, and Trump does not seem too concerned about their experiences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

I believe Obama's administration has been advocating for this type of for-profit education reform, and so I would think a Clinton "more-of-the-same" presidency would continue that work in a way that would benefit aspiring dentists.

Trump University, coupled with Trump's frequent use of bankruptcies in his businesses, does not seem to bode well for his ability to help create sound education policies in the future, or to help create a US educational system that would aid those of us hoping to enter the dental profession, and to do so affordably.

Lobbying from dental corporations, who would likely prefer lower-paid, midlevel providers to cut costs, seems more likely under Trump's Republican administration, due to the aforementioned lack of significant commitment to getting big money out of politics from the Republican party when compared to the Democratic party.

(As Trump would be responsible for selecting Supreme Court Justices during his Presidency, I think that makes a thorough evaluation of his qualifications as President *before* being elected even more important, as the justices he appoints, if confirmed, will likely decide cases in ways that would promote Trump's agenda long after he were to leave office.)

Clinton and Trump have both advocated for healthcare reform and universal healthcare, so I'm not sure we can depend on a Trump presidency to be less likely to negatively affect dental reimbursements:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm

As I mentioned, a Republican government, less interested in campaign finance reform and getting big money of politics, may actually make dental corporations more common as the dominant dental care model, which seems like a very poor situation for private practice dentists or those who hope to follow their previously successful business model.

In addition, while Clinton seems to campaign more strongly for progressive healthcare reform that may lower overall salaries of physicians, who enjoyed reimbursements in the previous fee-for-service model, it seems unclear how that would affect the majority of current physicians or dentists.

Primary care seems to have received a boost in median income under the ACA, for example, and general dentists are considered primary care providers in the United States:
http://www.nejmcareercenter.org/minisites/rpt/8-ways-that-the-aca-is-affecting-doctors-incomes/

As I've suggested, while the Trump vs. Clinton debate for dentistry seems important, it also seems valuable to determine how each political party would influence the field, especially since the 2016 election is more than just the race for US President.

Thanks, again, for the excellent discussion.

 

[Cold Front]

I feel like this is the most divided time this nation has ever been. Trump said in his debate with Clinton last night - "I may not or may not accept the election results". That's basically implying, "My supporters will not accept Hillary as their president". Although he retracted from that statement today, but how many people who watched the debate last night are aware of today's update? Who knows if he retracts back to what he said the first time again?

I feel Hillary will spend her presidency being trash talked by all those folks who didn't vote for her. She may not care, but that's not an effective bipartisan for the politicians that represent those anti-Hillary people. I bet Trump will continue to slip up off-camera even after he loses, and negatively undermine the new leadership. Yes, he will be uber bitter, and unlike previous elections losers; Al Gore, John McCain, Romney, etc - Trump will linger around. The guy is just going to keep himself in play through media circles the next 4+ years. I think Trump will be like a dental cavity that won't go away.

 

[Apramana]

I bet Trump will continue to slip up off-camera even after he loses, and negatively undermine the new leadership. Yes he will be bitter, but unlike previous elections losers; Al Gore, John McCain, Romney, etc - Trump will linger around. The guy is just going to keep himself in play through medica circle the next 4 years. I think Trump will be like a dental cavity that won't go away.

Interestingly, that seems like it may have been part of the business plan:
"Did Trump TV Launch Last Night?"
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498691090/did-trump-tv-launch-last-night

 

[Panis et Circenses]

I feel like this is the most divided time this nation has ever been. Trump said in his debate with Clinton last night - "I may not or may not accept the election results". That's basically implying, "My supporters will not accept Hillary as their president". Although he retracted from that statement today, but how many people who watched the debate last night are aware of today's update? Who knows if he retracts back to what he said the first time again?

I feel Hillary will spend her presidency being trash talked by all those folks who didn't vote for her. She may not care, but that's not an effective bipartisan for the politicians that represent those anti-Hillary people. I bet Trump will continue to slip up off-camera even after he loses, and negatively undermine the new leadership. Yes, he will be uber bitter, and unlike previous elections losers; Al Gore, John McCain, Romney, etc - Trump will linger around. The guy is just going to keep himself in play through media circles the next 4+ years. I think Trump will be like a dental cavity that won't go away.

Why do you expect people to respect her? She called nearly half of the population deplorables and irredeemable. She's compromised our national security, and is responsible for the deaths of our citizens in Benghazi. IF she becomes president, there is a very good reason for the many people that despise her to continue to do so. She has been very devisive.

Similar to the liberals in the 2000s who would wear those "not my president" shirts in reference to bush. Although, at least bush was respectful to liberals and didn't call them deplorable.

 

[Cold Front]

Why do you expect people to respect her? She called nearly half of the population deplorables and irredeemable. She's compromised our national security, and is responsible for the deaths of our citizens in Benghazi. IF she becomes president, there is a very good reason for the many people that despise her to continue to do so. She has been very devisive.

Similar to the liberals in the 2000s who would wear those "not my president" shirts in reference to bush. Although, at least bush was respectful to liberals and didn't call them deplorable.

I don't expect people to respect her, but my point (and like the debate anchorman said) was that in this country we respect the peaceful transition of power, and that includes Trump and his supporters, and that no matter how hard fought a campaign was, the loser concedes to the winner, and he/she helps the country come together. Hillary said she would if she lost, but your boy Trump clearly said that he is not interested in that (not exactly a no, but he clearly fell short of saying a yes). This is not about respecting someone, but respecting the rules of the democratic system. John McCain had to tell off his supporters and asked them to respect President Obama at his concession speech, and that he will support and help the country unite after moving forward. Donald Trump sounds like he won't, and I bet that he will just sound like a sore loser and create more division in the country. He is already calling the election a "rigged election", a sign of things to come in my opinion. Is that what America wants?

 

[751866]

Interestingly, it appears that policies to promote homeownership were promoted in the Roosevelt, Regan, Clinton, and Bush administrations, so it appears more difficult to assign blame to a single administration or a single party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis

This more thoroughly proves the point I was making that people often confuse current situations with the actions or decisions of the current president and that decisions typically have a lag period.

While the wealthy in society, of which dentists may be included, might enjoy the benefits of money allowing for increased influence in government through lobbying efforts, it seems that Clinton's campaign has highlighted a desire to get big money out of politics, which is a message promoted by many progressives and those that tend towards "liberal" perspectives.

Trump has made mention of this as well, I believe, but it seems Clinton has made it a more prominent part of her campaign:
http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/talk-no-action-clinton-trump-campaign-finance-reform/

How much big money did HRC turn down and finance on her own for the campaign? Sure, she may have less money than DT, but she could have put some money in an attempt to say "I'm not going to be as tied to other people who give us money."

As Cello mentioned, it seems Trump's professional life has been characterized by a singular focus on self interest and his own success, which does not seem to be the right focus for someone asking to be elected to one of our most prominent public service positions.

As Trump is going through the application process, so to speak, for the President, he seems to have tremendous difficulty fulfilling the standards that voters expect of him as we try to evaluate his professional fitness. As I mentioned, his disregard for campaign regulations, like soliciting foreign donations, makes me concerned that he may make similarly poor, and even illegal, choices as US President.

That's true, but when you're your own boss, you try to do things in your best interest. I can understand the concern, but the roles are totally different. Again, it's as simple as believing he can separate it or that he can't. Hillary has shown several instances of failure to separate her government duties from her private life. As I mentioned to Cello, dig for dirt on both candidates, there is plenty for you to flip the argument on the other candidate.

While evaluating whether or not to give Trump the power of the Presidency, I think that these unanswered questions are disqualifying, especially since it seems more difficult to remove the President from office once elected than it would be to remove an employee from a business, if the business owner were to quickly realize that their new hire were woefully unqualified for the position and a poor representation of the company and its values.

Are they more disqualifying than someone who was already in a government position who quite possibly acted illegally in the handling of classified documents and subpoenaed documents (i.e. deleting them instead of turning them over? Wikileaks has emails where they discuss holding emails from Congress that involved the POTUS).

Those who lobby for specific tax loopholes seem to be doing so in an attempt to create loopholes that have very specific requirements. So while we might think that the loopholes that Trump used are equally accessible for any taxpayer, they seem fairly specific to someone in his position as a very specific business owner.

I didn't say they are equally accessible for any taxpayer. If you read my post, I made sure to point out that if you fit those criteria, then you're eligible. Remember, fair isn't equal. Fair is that anyone with those criteria can get it, equal is more what you've said (that not everyone can use it).

I agree with you that for-profit education is almost always not worth it and is often disgraceful.

Trump University, coupled with Trump's frequent use of bankruptcies in his businesses, does not seem to bode well for his ability to help create sound education policies in the future, or to help create a US educational system that would aid those of us hoping to enter the dental profession, and to do so affordably.

Take a look at how many bankruptcies hes filed for and how many businesses hes been a part of or owned. The rate of bankruptcy is quite low. Bankruptcy as a strategic business move is a little different from creating educational policies, and I'm not sure how they tie together.

Lobbying from dental corporations, who would likely prefer lower-paid, midlevel providers to cut costs, seems more likely under Trump's Republican administration, due to the aforementioned lack of significant commitment to getting big money out of politics from the Republican party when compared to the Democratic party.

He did put out a plan regarding lobbying and ethics, or something to that nature, but I don't know the specifics. You may want to have a look because I know it at least proposes heavier regulations on former government employees lobbying. As I said before, how much money did the Clinton campaign turn down from people who will lobby? Trump has pumped a significant amount of money into his campaign so he doesn't have as many people to "owe favors."

I clipped far more here than my previous posts to avoid over involvement. I'm curious to see if anyone does some digging on their favorite candidate (as I suggested before) and if they'll report back what their thoughts are (mainly if you didn't know about Trump University or the Clinton Foundation, for example). It's easy to gloss over things that don't support our side, but they should be considered. This has been quite an interesting discussion, though. Sorry for taking it a bit further away from the intention of an impact on dentistry, but some of the justifications seemed to be missing other pieces of the puzzle (or contain unclear information).

 

[Panis et Circenses]

He is already calling the election a "rigged election", a sign of things to come in my opinion. Is that what America wants?

Haven't you seen the wikileaks emails on the DNC and Hillary's campaign to the media? The media communicating with clinton, showing her townhall questions beforehand.. Working actively against trump, that's rigging the election. They did they same against the Sanders.

 

[Cold Front]

Haven't you seen the wikileaks emails on the DNC and Hillary's campaign to the media? The media communicating with clinton, showing her townhall questions beforehand.. Working actively against trump, that's rigging the election. They did they same against the Sanders.

You know... none of what happened in a campain matters in less than 3 weeks, right? The winner will still be a winner, and a loser will still be a loser. But above all, the tradition of concession must still take place. Trump has already damaged any existing traditions throughout his campaign. He called POW's like John McCain a false victim, He called everyone names.... Women, Muslims, Mexicans, even his own party leader Paul Ryan a loser. And you expect him to talk like this all the way to the White House? lol

Yes, all politicians have lied and have big laundry basket, but you still need to play by the professional play book. I think if Trump acted with more serious demeanor and less like a clown, Hillary would have been a toast. Heck... I would have voted for him!