10 years of Trump's Tax Returns Leak

[Doug1029]

51 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

Are you saying people didn't do this with Obama and Clinton?

In an election in which almost anybody could have beaten tRUMP, the Democrats had to run Hillary.  This mess is as much their doing as tRUMP's.

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Like I said, that is al covered in this thread so go find it, I am not doing your legwork for you.  

So you don't have the evidence.  Like I thought.

Doug

[Space Commander Travis]

Do you spell it tRUMP for satirical effect? 

[Doc Socks Junior]

14 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There are some of us who look on in horror at what the tRUMP administration is doing.  His current budget guts the National Park Service. 

He has already sold drilling permits so close to Old Faithful Lodge that the drill pad would be in the parking lot.  The purchaser has not started drilling yet, saying that he bought it so that nobody else could drill it.  This, reportedly, has infuriated tRUMP.  What difference does it make to him?  The govt already has the permit money and if the purchaser decides not to drill, that's no skin off his nose.  So what difference?  it would be a huge slap-in-the-face to the environmental community - that is the whole reason he wants to destroy Old Faithful.  That's not government; that's just plain viciousness.

Uh, what now?  None of this sounds accurate at all.

 

[Merc14]

18 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

So you don't have the evidence.  Like I thought.

Doug

Sure I do doug, it is on page 3 of this very thread so everyone but you has it.   LMAO.  Is this what passes for stinging comebacks to leftists?   Hoe many times are you going to ask this and I steer you to the info on this very thread?  10, 20 30?     Go for it doug, we'd all enjoy watching this act.   Taking off now but will copy and paste "Sure I do doug, it is on page 3 of this very thread so everyone but you has it." when I get back online.

[Jerry Gallo]

1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

Are you saying people didn't do this with Obama and Clinton?

This still happens on a daily basis where I live. 

it's not right at all and I never stoop to such lows but to act like your side is innocent and that this crap doesn't happen from both sides is nonsense.

 

 

Does it happen on both sides? Sure. But same scope and scale? No chance, surely the left can admit that much?

When Obama was President, the usual suspects of prominent conservatives in media and Republicans in government blasted Obama every hour on policies, but at no time did they perpetrate the nonsense that was done to GWB in the mid-2000's and now, to Trump, on an hourly basis seven days a week. But, let's go with the notion it's equivalent. The birth certificate thing was the closest thing to personally smearing...how long did that last? Was a special counsel brought in? We had no choice but to endure the investigation, accept the conclusions if they proved wrong doing occurred. When it was ruled no collusion, that made the left worse. Now it's spun into a bigger mess.

Another example is SCOTUS nominees...compare what was done to Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh and tell me what was done to them was the moral equivalence of not giving a guy a hearing in the year before an election. 

[F3SS]

6 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Judging by the results of the mid-term, the will of the people may be a little different than you think.  Pelosi thinks the Dems should lay off the impeachment rhetoric until after the next election when, presumably, tRUMP will be voted out of office and the Dems pick up a few Senatorial seats.

Sounds like Sanders and Warren are slipping a little.

Doug

You realize the Dems had an enormous advantage for the mid-terms. There were I think 50+ incumbent Republicans, many never trumpets among them, who vacated their seats leaving it to newbies to battle it out otherwise many of those seats would've stayed red. 

Then there was the Mueller investigation and the dead horse narrative beating along that Trump was a Russian agent. If you think that wasn't an enormous advantage then I don't know what to say. It's being thought that Mueller probably knew long long before the mid-terms that there was no collusion. If that is true I think there is a strong argument to be made that withholding that information could be seen as election interference. Considering the weight of the circumstances, if that part of the investigation was long figured out I think that info should've been made public. 

Considering those massive advantages I'd have to say the Republicans did pretty well under Trump's first midterm. In fact, I think Trump did just a hair better than Regean during his first midterm and Regean ended up painting the map red on his incumbent election. I think 49/50 states and he didn't have half the ammo being thrown at him everyday. 

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, F3SS said:

You realize the Dems had an enormous advantage for the mid-terms. There were I think 50+ incumbent Republicans, many never trumpets among them, who vacated their seats leaving it to newbies to battle it out otherwise many of those seats would've stayed red. 

Then there was the Mueller investigation and the dead horse narrative beating along that Trump was a Russian agent. If you think that wasn't an enormous advantage then I don't know what to say. It's being thought that Mueller probably knew long long before the mid-terms that there was no collusion. If that is true I think there is a strong argument to be made that withholding that information could be seen as election interference. Considering the weight of the circumstances, if that part of the investigation was long figured out I think that info should've been made public. 

Considering those massive advantages I'd have to say the Republicans did pretty well under Trump's first midterm. In fact, I think Trump did just a hair better than Regean during his first midterm and Regean ended up painting the map red on his incumbent election. I think 49/50 states and he didn't have half the ammo being thrown at him everyday. 

Shhh, let the democrats revel in their tiny wins as they concentrate on the wrong target.  Never interrupt your enemy when he is hanging himself, just offer a stronger rope and help tie the knot. 

The "Feel the Bern" crowd has jettisoned Crazy Bernie for Creepy Joe and do you know why?  When that socialist turd ran in 2016 the millennials couldn't find a F'ing job, and now they have more offers than they know what to do with so suddenly socialism doesn't look so good.  Old Joe is offering a return of Obamanomics, a time when these MBAs could only get a job as a barista so not sure they want to enjoy the nostalgia so much that they wish to don the apron again.   

doug wants tax returns without realizing that anything that comes out of them will surprise no one but the chattering MSM and no one but dougie and his ilk.  This big win for doug really means lost months for the doomed 22 vying for the nomination that no one is paying attention to. Worse yet, for doug, Nadler just guaranteed months more of this stupidity and those 22 will be right where they are now.  Too funny.

Trump is doing rallies with tens of thousands and the dem nominees are....well, we will let doug crow about those crowds, should be fun.

So doug, keep trying for those tax returns and chase Barr for the next 18 months, works for me. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Merc14

[+Hammerclaw]

[lightly]

Ahh the brainwashed " right" and the suckered "left" argue on and blame each other as the fed&banks&insurance&petrol&pharmaceutical&defence etc. Giants run the country and screw all of us.      Amen. 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Ahh the brainwashed " right" and the suckered "left" argue on and blame each other as the fed&banks&insurance&petrol&pharmaceutical&defence etc. Giants run the country and screw all of us.      Amen. 

If those who conspired to use our intelligence and top law enforcement agencies to spy on an opposition candidate for president aren't publicly outed and tried, the rule of law will be done, finis.  The people are watching and their reaction will not be something the government can just ignore.

[Jerry Gallo]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:00 PM, Tatetopa said:

Well, I'd feel a lot more confident of his financial chops if he didn't keep repeating that the tariffs are forcing the Chinese to pay billions of dollars to the US Treasury.  It is the American companies that are buying the goods and the consumers who pay the bill.  Either he does not know that, which shows ignorance of international business or he is lying to the American people.

Interesting how corporations can be portrayed as both perpetrators and victims depending on the topic. That aside, tariffs on imports and exports surely do affect the consumer and I am sure Trump knows this, early high school economics covers this. The issue is it also affects the workers here who once manufactured these goods and materials. With a wage scale of the left's proposed $15/hr and the left's union demanded $40/hr, there is no way we can compete with China, Vietnam, Korea, etc on cost to manufacture. So, do we put workers out of business here to save consumers dough (the plan the left lambastes Wal-Mart for), do we pay inflated costs for only US made goods, or do we try to find a balance? Especially when goods we export are tariffed at higher rates.

We have this conundrum in the US already, with some states having higher minimum wage standards as well as right to work laws that causes losses to some states and gains for others. The left crusades for higher wages, expects costs to remain the same, and the business to eat the difference. You'll note, they never go out and start a department store, hardware store or oil company that operates on minimal profits to provide high wages and low costs, they just complain about the existing ones. We also see the left who says sock it to other states or other industries to protect their own. It's not a single point issue, but the one point that is salient is that the trade imbalance benefits those we import from. Trump's idea may not be ideal for all individuals, but it's tough to argue that it isn't designed to help us all collectively. 

[Jerry Gallo]

On 5/9/2019 at 6:57 AM, Robotic Jew said:

I'm not fan of trump but even I don't see why this is such a big deal. BUT it IS a bigger deal than the Hilary stuff posted above. (CDS maybe?)

Everyone with a brain could see that trump wasn't as good at business as he claimed and that his money was all due to his inheritance and ability to promote himself. 

So if he went belly up, but is now worth $8B, doesn't that kill the inheritance theory? So, if we're down to ability to promote one's self, wasn't the last President a thing based solely on that concept? Why wasn't self-promotion an issue then?

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Interesting how corporations can be portrayed as both perpetrators and victims depending on the topic. That aside, tariffs on imports and exports surely do affect the consumer and I am sure Trump knows this, early high school economics covers this. The issue is it also affects the workers here who once manufactured these goods and materials. With a wage scale of the left's proposed $15/hr and the left's union demanded $40/hr, there is no way we can compete with China, Vietnam, Korea, etc on cost to manufacture. So, do we put workers out of business here to save consumers dough (the plan the left lambastes Wal-Mart for), do we pay inflated costs for only US made goods, or do we try to find a balance? Especially when goods we export are tariffed at higher rates.

We have this conundrum in the US already, with some states having higher minimum wage standards as well as right to work laws that causes losses to some states and gains for others. The left crusades for higher wages, expects costs to remain the same, and the business to eat the difference. You'll note, they never go out and start a department store, hardware store or oil company that operates on minimal profits to provide high wages and low costs, they just complain about the existing ones. We also see the left who says sock it to other states or other industries to protect their own. It's not a single point issue, but the one point that is salient is that the trade imbalance benefits those we import from. Trump's idea may not be ideal for all individuals, but it's tough to argue that it isn't designed to help us all collectively. 

The Union Trump supporters around here love the idea of tariffs.  They can ask for the $40/hr to produce their product and then use the tariffs to make their competitors products cost the same.  These are the very coal miners and rust belt workers that tipped the scales to get Trump in office.

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

So if he went belly up, but is now worth $8B, doesn't that kill the inheritance theory? So, if we're down to ability to promote one's self, wasn't the last President a thing based solely on that concept? Why wasn't self-promotion an issue then?

Is he worth $8 billion?  It's increasingly looking like he is another Bernie Madoff sitting on top of a pyramid of debt. 

[Jerry Gallo]

On 5/10/2019 at 5:30 AM, Gromdor said:

Yeah, that's what has me scratching my head.  When times are good, most people pay off their credit card debt.  Trump has us cutting back on our card payments (Tax cut/deficit spending) and has us spending as much if not more as Obama did when he was borrowing to stimulate the economy.

  That tells me that he is just over stimulating the economy just to make one number (the GDP) go up while neglecting other aspects (the deficit, etc.)  I'll give him points for trying to balance the trade deficit, but it seems his efforts are just making it worse. 

Public debt hasn't declined since 2000, meaning in times of recovery from 9/11 and the housing crisis (good times), we weren't paying down our debt. And tax cuts should help us pay down public debt, that impacts intergovernmental debt.

[Jerry Gallo]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The Union Trump supporters around here love the idea of tariffs.  They can ask for the $40/hr to produce their product and then use the tariffs to make their competitors products cost the same.  These are the very coal miners and rust belt workers that tipped the scales to get Trump in office.

I'd look at the data used to form this opinion.

[Gromdor]

Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Public debt hasn't declined since 2000, meaning in times of recovery from 9/11 and the housing crisis (good times), we weren't paying down our debt. And tax cuts should help us pay down public debt, that impacts intergovernmental debt.

That model has been proven false both in Kansas (Brownback Experiment) and now with the Trump tax cuts. 

[Jerry Gallo]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Is he worth $8 billion?  It's increasingly looking like he is another Bernie Madoff sitting on top of a pyramid of debt. 

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the issues made by RJ.

 

[Jerry Gallo]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

That model has been proven false both in Kansas (Brownback Experiment) and now with the Trump tax cuts. 

Whether the model works or not, you said "when times are good, most people pay off their credit card debt". Statistics tell us that may be true in theory, but in reality, it's a fallacy since 2000.

Heading out for Mother's Day gatherings, let me know about the coal data or if you need some data on this topic.

Happy Mother's Day to all the moms in here!

Edited May 12, 2019 by Jerry Gallo
Added comment

[Gromdor]

Just now, Jerry Gallo said:

Whether the model works or not, you said "when times are good, most people pay off their credit card debt". Statistics tell us that may be true in theory, but in reality, it's a fallacy since 2000.

Eh, you might be right.  Individual Americans do have a credit card problem no matter what their income level is.  I probably should have said, "When times are good, most financially responsible people pay off their credit card debt."  The dumb ones cut their payments and buy new shoes on it. 

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Interesting how corporations can be portrayed as both perpetrators and victims depending on the topic. That aside, tariffs on imports and exports surely do affect the consumer and I am sure Trump knows this, early high school economics covers this. The issue is it also affects the workers here who once manufactured these goods and materials. With a wage scale of the left's proposed $15/hr and the left's union demanded $40/hr, there is no way we can compete with China, Vietnam, Korea, etc on cost to manufacture. So, do we put workers out of business here to save consumers dough (the plan the left lambastes Wal-Mart for), do we pay inflated costs for only US made goods, or do we try to find a balance? Especially when goods we export are tariffed at higher rates.

We have this conundrum in the US already, with some states having higher minimum wage standards as well as right to work laws that causes losses to some states and gains for others. The left crusades for higher wages, expects costs to remain the same, and the business to eat the difference. You'll note, they never go out and start a department store, hardware store or oil company that operates on minimal profits to provide high wages and low costs, they just complain about the existing ones. We also see the left who says sock it to other states or other industries to protect their own. It's not a single point issue, but the one point that is salient is that the trade imbalance benefits those we import from. Trump's idea may not be ideal for all individuals, but it's tough to argue that it isn't designed to help us all collectively. 

A full response Jerry and one that has a lot to do with our future prosperity.  I like it.

First, just to get it out of the way, I am not about giving everybody free stuff, or rewards for not working.

Here is my take on US competition with China and India.  We can't go head to head with China and India on simple-tech basic products.  When you think about it, would you want to?    For example, do we want US workers to make $15 dollars a day instead of $15 an hour?  Do we want what passes for our lower middle class living in dirt floor tin shacks and discarded refrigerator boxes?  In my industry, metal casting, we compete quite favorably on complex, large, high end products and wages of $15 to $25 dollars an hour are commonplace.  We cannot compete on simple mild steel mid-sized castings that can be made with very low tech unskilled workers.  That is why things like manhole covers are mostly made in India and China; a bare-foot guy who lives in a shack and can't read or write can still make a manhole cover.  If he is injured on the job, so what?  Somebody else is waiting to take that job.  A race to the bottom is easy but the reward is living in a sh**hole country. 

I notice that you imply that workers' wages are a problem and maybe unions are too greedy.  I think you are correct that all industries cannot support a wage that  sustains a middle class.  Those are non-competitive industries.  As you say a balance must be struck.

How does that happen?  Are we comfortable with letting  the sh**hole start rising up the rungs of the ladder?  The poor will suffer first and maybe would delay our problems if a bunch of them die off.

As the cesspool climbs higher due to world competition and automation, the middle class will be standing knee deep in it too. The upper middle class will want to climb higher, but there has always been room for only a few at the top.  It is not going to change any time soon.  College degrees and professional white collar jobs are vulnerable to replacement from AI expert systems and automation.  People that work for a living are under pressure.  People that make their living from their capital have more options.  They can invest in those Indian steel foundries  and Vietnamese clothing factories.  They don't need our sympathy, and in reality, they don't do the rest of us any favors unless it is to their benefit.

Are we training people for the higher tech jobs and pouring resources into education to keep us at the forefront of technology?  Not enough and not fast enough from what I can see.

America was a wonderful place when most of us were agriculturalists and small tradesmen and merchants.  But we have no easy path to get back there.  Larger and larger conglomerates and monopolies take us further from that point and don't seem to make us that much more competitive.  I don't want to give handouts to the upper or the lower 10% for doing nothing. 

I would rather have paid off the deficit than been given a tax cut.  $100 dollars a month is nice, but it will cost my kids and grand kids dearly.

I would choose to break up large monopolies, especially in the financial sector.  Banks too big to fail will get arrogant, careless, and fail.  We will bail them out  or bear the brunt of the suffering as they squeak out from under their debts and our 401k's tank.

I would choose to promote technology and training.  Reduced tuition for fields like engineering, medicine, and science might be a good idea.  

We needed to face China, the whole world did,  but our tariffs did not solidify a united front.  We chose to go it alone.  Tariffs might not be the best way to do it.  And Jerry, they do nothing to solve the basic problem in our own economy.

Our soybean and hog farmers were doing great until the Chinese put tariffs on those products in retribution.  Now they are on the verge of losing it.  .  Another year of floods or bad weather will put many of them out of business.  Giving them subsidies is not the answer.

I don't think there is much thought or design in the current ideas beyond getting votes from a few segments, collectively, it will not take us to where we want to be. 

[Jerry Gallo]

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, you might be right.  Individual Americans do have a credit card problem no matter what their income level is.  I probably should have said, "When times are good, most financially responsible people pay off their credit card debt."  The dumb ones cut their payments and buy new shoes on it. 

Having spent a decade of adulthood as the former and two as the latter, I can confirm both are accurate!

[Jerry Gallo]

34 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

A full response Jerry and one that has a lot to do with our future prosperity.  I like it.

First, just to get it out of the way, I am not about giving everybody free stuff, or rewards for not working.

Here is my take on US competition with China and India.  We can't go head to head with China and India on simple-tech basic products.  When you think about it, would you want to?    For example, do we want US workers to make $15 dollars a day instead of $15 an hour?  Do we want what passes for our lower middle class living in dirt floor tin shacks and discarded refrigerator boxes?  In my industry, metal casting, we compete quite favorably on complex, large, high end products and wages of $15 to $25 dollars an hour are commonplace.  We cannot compete on simple mild steel mid-sized castings that can be made with very low tech unskilled workers.  That is why things like manhole covers are mostly made in India and China; a bare-foot guy who lives in a shack and can't read or write can still make a manhole cover.  If he is injured on the job, so what?  Somebody else is waiting to take that job.  A race to the bottom is easy but the reward is living in a sh**hole country. 

I notice that you imply that workers' wages are a problem and maybe unions are too greedy.  I think you are correct that all industries cannot support a wage that  sustains a middle class.  Those are non-competitive industries.  As you say a balance must be struck.

How does that happen?  Are we comfortable with letting  the sh**hole start rising up the rungs of the ladder?  The poor will suffer first and maybe would delay our problems if a bunch of them die off.

As the cesspool climbs higher due to world competition and automation, the middle class will be standing knee deep in it too. The upper middle class will want to climb higher, but there has always been room for only a few at the top.  It is not going to change any time soon.  College degrees and professional white collar jobs are vulnerable to replacement from AI expert systems and automation.  People that work for a living are under pressure.  People that make their living from their capital have more options.  They can invest in those Indian steel foundries  and Vietnamese clothing factories.  They don't need our sympathy, and in reality, they don't do the rest of us any favors unless it is to their benefit.

Are we training people for the higher tech jobs and pouring resources into education to keep us at the forefront of technology?  Not enough and not fast enough from what I can see.

America was a wonderful place when most of us were agriculturalists and small tradesmen and merchants.  But we have no easy path to get back there.  Larger and larger conglomerates and monopolies take us further from that point and don't seem to make us that much more competitive.  I don't want to give handouts to the upper or the lower 10% for doing nothing. 

I would rather have paid off the deficit than been given a tax cut.  $100 dollars a month is nice, but it will cost my kids and grand kids dearly.

I would choose to break up large monopolies, especially in the financial sector.  Banks too big to fail will get arrogant, careless, and fail.  We will bail them out  or bear the brunt of the suffering as they squeak out from under their debts and our 401k's tank.

I would choose to promote technology and training.  Reduced tuition for fields like engineering, medicine, and science might be a good idea.  

We needed to face China, the whole world did,  but our tariffs did not solidify a united front.  We chose to go it alone.  Tariffs might not be the best way to do it.  And Jerry, they do nothing to solve the basic problem in our own economy.

Our soybean and hog farmers were doing great until the Chinese put tariffs on those products in retribution.  Now they are on the verge of losing it.  .  Another year of floods or bad weather will put many of them out of business.  Giving them subsidies is not the answer.

I don't think there is much thought or design in the current ideas beyond getting votes from a few segments, collectively, it will not take us to where we want to be. 

 I don't disagree with many of your points Tat, there surely are a lot of seemingly unsolvable issues that you have brought up.

My issue with unions is that few seem to do what they were needed for back in the 70's. A local UAW employee at GM makes $80K/yr to watch the line go by. Some still work fairly hard, the assemblers and people in the fab plants. But many aren't doing much more than the worker at Mickey D's. And the benefits, the ability to screw off until you get too many points, then just waiting until the points reset to screw off again. But what irritates me is not that they make more than me, with better benefits and do less work most days, it's that I cannot buy a decent sized vehicle for less than $30K. Yes, GM management is partly to blame, but not the only ones. Can't get out of the grocery store for less than $200, partly due to cost of goods, but also because the union bagger that's been there for two decades is making far more than the high school kid the job was intended for due to union mandated raises. And don't even get me started on the worst of all unions which is the teacher's union. (Disclaimer: Great teachers deserve the moon, the other 50% are there solely for the comp and bennies)

As it relates to these United States, the difficulty is I don't see us moving away for machines to produce and serve the people. One can say this is solely for exorbitant profits, but the Roomba says it's also about time and convenience. There are days when I'd like someone to greet me and take my order, I appreciate the fellowship. Other times, I'd prefer to not have to go back in to exchange my drink or trade in my order for the soccer mom's behind me. I mean, the receipt says Diet, that goes straight to the soda conveyor, how do both the human and the machine get it wrong? Certainly we are headed down a dangerous path of what to do with the replaced workers. Oddly enough, when military cuts are made, no one worries about those unemployed folks as much as the domestic private workers, but I digress, just another oddity I find interesting.

As it relates to other countries, I agree, we don't want to go backwards to the sweatshop phenomenon.And I don't want people living in squalor. However, I do expect people to live within their means and most people don't think they should have to. Sweat equity was a thing way back when, then that went overboard and we needed unions. Now, many people are allergic to sweat, there should be no such thing as "jobs we won't do". You want to eat, you want a decent roof over your head, you want comfy clothes...there should be no job one won't do. 

I'm all for technology and training, we're of the same mind there. Problem is, many of the tech sector's entry level jobs are low wage where longevity gets you the big bucks. Our young people are impatient, largely the fault of my generation of parents. Some jobs are hard, some boring, some are thankless.

All that said, I know the farmers are being hurt. I know some industries that rely on materials from China are in a bind. All deserve empathy, some more than others. The question is, is there a solution that solves it all? I don't see one. We'll always have poverty, we'll always have a lower class, someone always has to be on the bottom. Do I like that? No. Is it my fault, or even the government's fault, or our obligation to solve...maybe to a small degree.

I don't fault you for this, it's human nature to crusade for the little guy, the people who truly deserve representation. But at the same time, some within those same groups need tough love and a reality check. There are as many deadbeats sponging off the government, wasting their money on drugs, booze, or toys rather than necessities. If both sides could put their differences aside, maybe there could be some progress or collaboration on solving some of these problems. I agree sometimes I am too insensitive to the needs of some folks, but I think the left is often too sensitive, inconsistent, or exploitative of the "victims" of  these issues. Right or wrong, I come from a place of wanting fairness for all people. There are very few people who are in a position of comfort that wasn't earned. The hatred of the wealthy is counter-productive. Without some of those conglomerates, people who've worked for 30-40 years would have squat in their 401k that invests in those outfits, with uncertainty surrounding pensions and SS. Hard for me to ask them to sacrifice for the portion of those in need who don't do anything to help themselves. I think the problem is, there are likely five categories of people out there, where we tend to focus on the ends. 

As for going it alone...frankly, that's as much the left's fault as anyone. People need the US, in spite of however unbecoming the leader might be. But when own country denigrates the guy and calls him a thief and a cheat, how does that help other countries want to work with him on tariffs?

I don't know the answer of "what is the right thing to do" in all situations, but I know that until both sides are willing to stop with the oneupsmanship and gotcha discourse, it's always gonna be political ping-pong. Thus, I appreciate you laying out your side in a cordial manner.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

don't know the answer of "what is the right thing to do" in all situations, but I know that until both sides are willing to stop with the oneupsmanship and gotcha discourse, it's always gonna be political ping-pong. Thus, I appreciate you laying out your side in a cordial manner.

Another comprehensive text.  Thanks Jerry.

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

The hatred of the wealthy is counter-productive. Without some of those conglomerates, people who've worked for 30-40 years would have squat in their 401k that invests in those outfits, with uncertainty surrounding pensions and SS.

It is not about hatred of the rich or giving to people who don't do anything for themselves.   

Consider this a game, or at least  a situation where game theory is applicable.  Not in the sense it is always fun or that it is inconsequential, but in the sense that there are rules that determine our behaviors and the game outcomes. 

Society and ethics make some of those rules, economic reality makes some of those rules, and the government of the country we live in makes some rules.  In addition, there is a meta-game where all of the countries in the world compete with their different rule sets.

We can determine some outcomes by modifying rules.  SO then a question becomes what outcomes do we want?

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

And I don't want people living in squalor. However, I do expect people to live within their means and most people don't think they should have to. Sweat equity was a thing way back when, then that went overboard and we needed unions. Now, many people are allergic to sweat, there should be no such thing as "jobs we won't do". You want to eat, you want a decent roof over your head, you want comfy clothes...there should be no job one won't do. 

There is an outcome.  So maybe we can agree to have rules that say no job is demeaning,  If you don't have a job, take what comes along.

Second part of that is, can a job like that provide  a roof and food and clothing, not luxury or extravagant just basic? Can we have a rule that says anybody who is willing to work 55 hours per week at any job can have those things, and that if two people are working they can afford to house, feed, and cloth two kids as well as themselves?   If that is an important outcome we want, we might have to create some rules of the game that provide that assistance to hard workers to counterbalance  other economic forces. 

Is it OK with us that  a dozen entities wind up owning 98% of everything?  If not, then tax structure, both corporate and personal is a tool that slows the growth of wealth acquisition.  We want to reward people for being clever, inventive, and hard working beyond the ordinary with enough incentives to be worth while and give a sense of satisfaction.  We want to reward corporations for behavior that benefits society; like reinvesting in technology or new equipment or job training.    

My analogy is rather like a human body.  If all parts are functioning properly, the body is healthy, energetic, and long lived.  If  so much fat accumulates as to shorten life or impair function,  or cancer develops, it needs to be dealt with. .A  cancer is just cells growing without proper organization and without limits, it can cripple or kill the body. If an economy sinks too much resource in non-productive items, eventually the economic body can weaken and die.

Is the game and all players best served by conglomerates and monopolies?   Are more people served by a greater number of competitors and an opportunity to enter a field that is not dominated by one or two mega-corporations?  Is inventiveness and progress better served by greater fluidity and more competition.   Maybe there could be some rules like no entity controls more than 20 % of a market and cannot own 20% in more than some number, say 3 markets.   Financial markets seem prone to this and we have already seen how disastrous that can be.

Maybe there should be some firmer rules about limiting government debt.

We have rules now.  We probably don't need to make a bunch more, just modify the ones we have.  We frequently  complain about the corruption and  inefficiency of the government.  They are playing by the existing rules and using all of the loopholes provided.  If we want a different outcome, we need to change the rules, not depend on the honor of politicians and lobbyists.