A round up of Trumpian events 🖕🍊🤡


Donald Trump has a big red button on his desk. Now every time I see him drinking a Coke I’ll have to wonder if he ordered it accidentally when he tried to launch a nuclear attack.


You have to admit, that’s a clever hack by Jared.
“What do we do about the launch button? It’s right there!!”
“It’s bright red… tell him it’s the Coke button and make it buzz the kitchen staff instead.”


As a follow up – it turns out that this order gives Ms DeVos 300 days to review the various ways the government works with state & local government in regards to public education.

So, basically, she gets a year to say the things she’s already been saying. A fake EO so he can say he “took action on education” in his first 100 days.


Well this sounds amazing…

…ly bad.

I don’t know much about economics, but I know what happens in Sim City when I start messing with the tax levers: nothing good.


The NYT is being very generous in describing this as lowering the tax burden for everyone. It causes the taxes on rich individuals to basically vanish: removing the estate tax, alternate minimum tax, taxing foreign investments by US companies, the ACA tax on investment income, etc. It’s a massive windfall for very wealthy people. Without taxing investment gains, estate income, gifts, etc. there is no middle class whatsoever globally.

I also notice he did this with zero commitment to the nationalist tax agenda, in fact is strengthens globalist playing shell games internationally while encouraging them simply live in the US.


Do he have one of these too?

China? That was easy!
Syria? That was easy!
North Korea? …


Damn, I had to read the story, about how the butler brings it. Now I can’t scrub this image of L. Ron Hubbard, playing rajah in England.


Yeah. It sure sounds flowery but I certainly don’t trust any sort of tax plan from someone that won’t release their own taxes. From what I’ve read - and let’s be clear, this “plan” is a 1 page document at this point - this all sounds colossally bad for everybody other than super rich. But you just know the low information Conservatives are gonna love it (yay, reduced biz taxes! Bigger standard deduction!).


Yeah, that’s the phrase for it.


It’s like, how did nobody think of these wonderful solutions sooner, right?


Here’s a less generous take on this plan


Estimated $5.5 trillion hit:

How any “conservative” can be for this will be an interesting bit of mental gymnastics.


This document they released is a joke.

Reducing the 7 tax brackets to 3 tax brackets of 10%, 25% and 35%

The top rate would be 12% lower than the current 39.6. It’s very important to get more detail because, depending on the positioning of the brackets, they might actually intend to increase the rate for some. Say, the $9k - 38k bracket now at 15% up to that 25%.

Doubling the standard deduction

I’m suspicious of this one. But we should actually engage with these details. This seems to be the populist sauce on top of all the shit. (Congressional Republicans will never go for it; they eat shit for breakfast.)

Providing tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses

In the same way as the Tax Policy Center (I think it was, based on the campaign proposal) found would give the typical low-income family a benefit of $10? Thanks, Ivanka!

Eliminate targeted tax breaks that mainly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers

I’m assuming that means carried interest. I’ll believe it when I see it passed into law.

Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax

This is a massive payout to the wealthy. You can justify it on simplification grounds, but not when paired with the rest of the details of the proposal. This is something like $1 trillion over 10 years, going 90% to those with income over 100k. Also, the AMT is indexed now, so it doesn’t present a bracket creep problem (it is complex, though).

Repeal the death tax

Another massive payout to the wealthy.

Repeal the 3.8% Obamacare tax that hits small businesses and investment income

I’m really not surprised they want to repeal this, since it’s a Democratic pay-for that’s pretty narrowly targeted at high-income taxpayers. But this is yet another thing to add to the fiscal hole 45 is creating for himself.

15% business tax rate

Corporations are better than people!

News reports all say this will also apply to individual business income, S-corps, partnerships and LLCs. Has a 10-year cost of at least another $3 trillion. :astonished:

Territorial tax system to level the playing field for American companies

That one is actually needed, from what I know of it. But I have to admit lack of knowledge in this area. Having a worldwide system when just about every other country uses territorial does seem to put US companies at a disadvantage.

One-time tax on trillions of dollars held overseas

At pennies on the dollar, no doubt.

Eliminate tax breaks for special interests

Yeah, right! There’s a reason they threw this vague one in at the very end.


Trump’s previous tax plan:

Trump material starts at 5:13


Steve Mnuchin has no idea what you’re talking about!



Prolific this morning.


Some folks question his mental stability, but it takes effort to come up with that many blatant, infuriatingly inflammatory lies within such short a time, especially for the Leader of the Free World with so much on his plate!

He must have had an epic turd to pinch.


I had to do research to see what he was even talking about with “insurance company bailouts.” Notice I had to find a fact-check about Rubio to learn what he means.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/25/marco-rubio/rubio-we-wiped-out-obamacare-bailout-fund-insuranc/[quote=Risky Business]What Rubio calls a bailout is actually a part of the Affordable Care Act known as “risk corridors.”

When the health care law started requiring insurance companies to sell policies to everyone (even sick people with pre-existing conditions), those companies were caught in a tough spot. They didn’t know how much to charge in premiums to cover expenses for all those new policies.

So the law set up a three-year period, from 2014 to 2016, during which the government would spread the risk for insurers in the new law’s marketplaces while they adjusted premiums. This program is known as risk corridors.

If a company is good at setting its rates and make more than a certain amount, they pay Washington some of their extra money. These are called user fees. If a company is not so good at setting rates and loses money, the government would cover some of their losses.

That’s the bailout to which Rubio is referring. He started calling it a “bailout” for unsuccessful insurance companies in 2013, the same year he introduced an ill-fated bill in the Senate to repeal the program.

But let’s be clear: Several experts told us risk corridors aren’t a bailout. A bailout is usually a program that saves a company after the fact. Risk corridors are a mechanism that was put in place to deal with a problem that everyone assumes could occur.

And they aren’t new, either. The risk corridors program was modeled after a successful plan that was part of George W. Bush’s Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, albeit slightly different than the Obamacare version. No one referred to that as a bailout.

Whether it will really kill Obamacare is up for debate. Some legal scholars have said all the rider did was highlight a problem the law already had and prevent a workaround. Two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office said the risk corridors will likely eventually break even by 2016.

If the program doesn’t, CMS will have to find the money somehow or ask Congress to make an appropriation to pay insurers. Otherwise, insurers could sue to get those payments. An Oregon insurance company that is no longer offering marketplace plans did just that on Feb. 24, suing the government for $5 billion over missed risk corridors payments.[/quote]


If they doubled the standard deduction, mortgage interest would no longer be (effectively) tax deductible for most Americans. For example, we pay about $15,000 a year in mortgage interest. If the standard deduction becomes $25,000, we don’t need to deduct that interest-which lowers the motive for buying a house. Now, it’s true that if we got that deduction, we’d have more money to buy a house, but I’m very skeptical that my actual taxes will be lower in the end. And, of course, they are talking about not making property taxes deductible; same reaction.