Hillary Clinton

.

Today, Wikileaks celebrated its tenth birthday. Alex Jones has been hyping up the event for days, telling everyone Assange would sink Hillary with some devastating new leaks. In the end he believed it himself. So when the birthday celebration turned out to be just a birthday celebration and nothing else, he raged hard and called Assange a Hillary buttplug. I love that nutter.

"

Xavderion написал:

Today, Wikileaks celebrated its tenth birthday. Alex Jones has been hyping up the event for days, telling everyone Assange would sink Hillary with some devastating new leaks. In the end he believed it himself. So when the birthday celebration turned out to be just a birthday celebration and nothing else, he raged hard and called Assange a Hillary buttplug. I love that nutter.

Geez, how quickly the press turns on those who disappoint them. Assange had said he would release the data, just not when. Patience is a virtue. Speaking of a fickle press:

1995 New York Times Crowns Donald Trump: “The Comeback King”…

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/10/04/1995-new-york-times-crowns-donald-trump-the-comeback-king/#more-122678

"

October 25th 1995 New York Times – Crowning the Comeback King – Though there are still four years to go in the 90’s, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called “the comeback of the decade.”

Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80’s before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling.

Of course, it has of late become politically expedient to excoriate Mr. Trump for this same accomplishment. =^[.]^=

"

Raycheetah написал:

Geez, how quickly the press turns on those who disappoint them.

Almost as quickly as they run away when the story is about their puppet masters:

"Yesterday, the Clinton Foundation quietly refiled three years of tax forms bc it was also not following NY law."

"Clinton Foundation's Forms 990 from 2010 through 2012 recorded zero income on a line to report government grants. Foundation officials said the payments had been inadvertently lumped in with other contributions."

................

Or this story:

Campaign Admits Hillary Used Same Tax Avoidance Scheme As Trump

"Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns 'scandal' focused on the billionaire's yuuge "net operating loss" and how it might have 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years, we now discover none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton utilized a $700,000 "loss" to avoid paying some taxes in 2015"

You can see it for yourself on page 17 of the return here:

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

I think the Hillary campaign is beginning to get scared:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5wZuBxDuM

^ really stimulates your prefrontal cortex

lol dalai.

> claiming "net operating loss" to 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years

> claiming "net operating loss" to avoid paying Some taxes for one year.

> these things are the same

.

"

Entropic_Fire написал:

I mean honestly if you behave legally within the framework of the tax code then you personally shouldn't face any criticism.

Liberals always pay more taxes than they're supposed to. They're good people.

"

LostForm написал:

lol dalai.

> claiming "net operating loss" to 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years

> claiming "net operating loss" to avoid paying Some taxes for one year.

> these things are the same

They are the same thing. It's been part of US tax law for quite some time. IIRC, at the time, the law specified for the ability to carry such losses back 2 year and forward 15 years.

You can look it up if you want.

They are in the tax code to keep businesses investing when they would otherwise be pulling their money in and sheltering it.

Although depreciation of expenses isn't exactly the same thing - it too, can be spread out over several years to help businesses lower taxes and encourage them to invest.

The underlying logic (try to keep businesses going and people employed)is what underpinned the federal government propping up Banks and Auto manufacturers.

The logic behind funding of environmentally friendly companies isn't just because the government wants to help the environment, but because the government wants businesses to spring up and flourish - around the green industry.

Jobs programs - ye old "shovel ready" bills, are again, an attempt to help foster business growth and more jobs.

You can certainly debate how effective the various are at creating jobs, or how efficient they are in terms of dollars relinquished/given out - but the purpose of all of them isn't nefarious in the least.

Whether the laws are subject to fraud is open for discussion as well. Neither Trump's usage, nor Hillary's usage constituted fraud.

Whether their usage fostered more jobs long term, or just helped line the pockets of Trump or line the pockets of Hillary is also open for debate.

The legality or ethics of using the law at the time however are clear. No problems exist on either front.

Trump's losses and the carryover period certainly represent a quantitative difference, but not a qualitative difference.

There's no need to take my word for it though, ask a few CPA's about it. They are the subject matter experts on this.

you forgot the part where he was living on estimated approximately $450,000 a month while claiming losses from his company means he has no income and lost the money originally due to having to restructure his business due to over leveraging his business. But his estimated $450,000 personal spending a month was in no way part of any of this, and should not be part of any discussions of trump's business 'acumen'. I am guessing he actually paid his tax guy at least.

And yes it is not only unethical but also deceptive and possibly he is liable for a lot of things when all the law suits finally come down.


"His companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and the New York State Department of Finance has obtained liens on Trump properties for unpaid tax bills at least three dozen times."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/01/donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles/84995854/

I'm sure you've seen it, its not new and has been referenced a lot. He has a problem with any form of taxation, while using the systems the taxes pay for 1,900 times as a plaintiff. Never mind the infrastructure his businesses rely on.

He is the rap video candidate, living large on borrowed shit, and complaining when he has to pay for it.