Newsweek: 'Trump Impeachment Odds Rise After Explosive 'Fire and Fury' Book Revelations'

[Swordsmyth]

neocon without a cult following would be amazing.

[nikcers]

Just wait for the bipartisanship that a cult following gives them a mandate to deliver.

[Swordsmyth]

Just wait for the bipartisanship that a cult following gives them a mandate to deliver.

The Trump cult is antithetical to bipartisanship, Pence would elicit a flood of it.

[nikcers]

The Trump cult is antithetical to bipartisanship, Pence would elicit a flood of it.

No they are a bunch of idiots running around smelling Trumps farts saying that they smell good. They have become dangerous because Trump is controlled opposition and there is nothing that Trump will do that they will not fight for. Trump could start war with China tomorrow and they would cheer.

[PierzStyx]

I wouldn't say soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better, but it is definitely better.

The problem with Bush was that he doubled the size of government and started several wars.

Trump has started zero wars, he has lowered taxes and decreased spending.

Is it your argument we would be better off with higher taxes and more spending and another war or two?

Trump hasn't needed to start any wars, though he keeps threatening to start a few. And he has intensified the drone bombings that took place in the Obama years, killing four times as many innocent people than Obama managed in the same time. By your logic Obama was a great President because he never started a war, only bombed places.

Trump hasn't lowered taxes. No one effectively paid a 37% tax rate. Anyone with money enough to have to also had enough money to hire people to find them the legal loopholes out of doing so, as Trump knows so well form investing in real estate. Bringing that highest tier by 2% doesn't change anything. Everything else he did was simply fiddle with the tax thresholds. If anything large families will be punished because the Trump tax plan eliminates personal exemptions. People with more children will see their tax returns shrink and tax rates effectively rise. Single fathers will see their taxes increase as they are no longer able to get exemptions on the alimony they pay. They also limited exemptions and deductions for paying property taxes, meaning property owners will see their taxes rise and returns shrink. The only think that is a real tax cut is the corporate tax rate is lowered. This is a positive. But everything else is either not a cut or just fiddling with the color of the paint.

And whatever marginal benefits you or I might see is more than offset by the Trump budget, which increases government spending without limit. He proposed budget will lead to more government spending with less revenue. The only way to pay for such a plan is by increasing borrowing and printing more money, itself a hidden tax that destroys the wealth of the masses and especially harms the elderly and disabled living on fixed incomes as they see inflation eat away at the worth of their money.

The budget proposes to increase government spending from $4 trillion today to $5.7 trillion in 2027. That's $1.7 trillion more over the next decade, but in Washington this is described as "budget cuts." Any normal person, looking at an increase of this magnitude, would say that this constitutes an increase.

Looking at individual programs, it is misleading to state that spending on Medicaid programs will be cut, as many did this morning. The new budget proposes to increase federal Medicaid spending from $378 billion a year today to $524 billion a year in 2027. It shows how far removed Washington is from everyday Americans for this increase of $146 billion to be called a cut.

The fundamental problem is that special interests are addicted to the rising path of spending. Altering this path by increasing spending at a slower rate always opens change-makers to extraordinary attacks, as we have seen today.

Some other programs that are similarly described as cuts will also increase. Consider, for example, the Department of Agriculture's Child Nutrition Programs. The program had outlays of $23 billion in 2017, and President Trump has proposed for spending to rise to $34 billion in 2027, a 47% increase. True, this is less than the $29 billion increase that Congress has allocated. But it is still an increase.

Then, consider the Department of Health and Human Services' Child Support and Family Support Programs, which Trump proposes to increase from $4 billion in 2017 to $5 billion in 2027, a 25% increase. Yes, $840 million has been trimmed from Congress' prior plans, but the program is still getting more funding.

President Trump wants to increase funding from $61 billion in 2017 to $76 billion in 2027 for the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which supplements incomes of low earners and is administered by the Internal Revenue Service. Yes, $1 billion is cut from the baseline, but spending is still rising.

https://www.investors.com/politics/c...lly-increases/

As for another war or two, if you want to straw man, you defending Republicans must mean you think this is the way we should treat little children:



But then again, why should I be surprised, you're on here defending scum like Donald "Lets murder all the innocent family members of anyone we label a 'terrorist'" Trump and Mitch "Endless War" McConnell is somehow better in anyway.

[dannno]

Trump hasn't lowered taxes.

My taxes are going down in the four figure range, so are specs.. Did you see the thread with the link that had the tax savings calculator? I'll bet you are getting a tax break, too.

But then again, why should I be surprised, you're on here defending scum like Donald "Lets murder all the innocent family members of anyone we label a 'terrorist'" Trump and Mitch "Endless War" McConnell is somehow better in anyway.

Trump never said anything about murdering innocent family members of terrorists.

[Schifference]

Trump hasn't needed to start any wars, though he keeps threatening to start a few. And he has intensified the drone bombings that took place in the Obama years, killing four times as many innocent people than Obama managed in the same time. By your logic Obama was a great President because he never started a war, only bombed places.

Trump hasn't lowered taxes. No one effectively paid a 37% tax rate. Anyone with money enough to have to also had enough money to hire people to find them the legal loopholes out of doing so, as Trump knows so well form investing in real estate. Bringing that highest tier by 2% doesn't change anything. Everything else he did was simply fiddle with the tax thresholds. If anything large families will be punished because the Trump tax plan eliminates personal exemptions. People with more children will see their tax returns shrink and tax rates effectively rise. Single fathers will see their taxes increase as they are no longer able to get exemptions on the alimony they pay. They also limited exemptions and deductions for paying property taxes, meaning property owners will see their taxes rise and returns shrink. The only think that is a real tax cut is the corporate tax rate is lowered. This is a positive. But everything else is either not a cut or just fiddling with the color of the paint.

And whatever marginal benefits you or I might see is more than offset by the Trump budget, which increases government spending without limit. He proposed budget will lead to more government spending with less revenue. The only way to pay for such a plan is by increasing borrowing and printing more money, itself a hidden tax that destroys the wealth of the masses and especially harms the elderly and disabled living on fixed incomes as they see inflation eat away at the worth of their money.






As for another war or two, if you want to straw man, you defending Republicans must mean you think this is the way we should treat little children:



But then again, why should I be surprised, you're on here defending scum like Donald "Lets murder all the innocent family members of anyone we label a 'terrorist'" Trump and Mitch "Endless War" McConnell is somehow better in anyway.

A married couple with 3 kids that gross 45k would have 7.35% of their wages withheld totaling $3307.50. When they file their return they get a $6000 child credit. They have a zero tax liability and get a refund that exceeds what they paid.

Summary Table

Estimated Tax Analysis
Gross income
(subject to personal rates) $45,000
Taxable Pass-Through Income + $0
Qualified plan contributions - $0
Adjusted gross income = $45,000
Standard/Itemized deductions - $24,000
Taxable income = $21,000
Tax liability before credits
(includes taxes on pass-through income) $2,139
Child tax credits - $6,000
Family tax credits - $0
Estimated tax liability = $0
Refundable Child Tax Credit $3,861

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...r?skn=#results

[Danke]

A married couple with 3 kids that gross 45k would have 7.35% of their wages withheld totaling $3307.50. When they file their return they get a $6000 child credit. They have a zero tax liability and get a refund that exceeds what they paid.

Summary Table

Estimated Tax Analysis
Gross income
(subject to personal rates) $45,000
Taxable Pass-Through Income + $0
Qualified plan contributions - $0
Adjusted gross income = $45,000
Standard/Itemized deductions - $24,000
Taxable income = $21,000
Tax liability before credits
(includes taxes on pass-through income) $2,139
Child tax credits - $6,000
Family tax credits - $0
Estimated tax liability = $0
Refundable Child Tax Credit $3,861

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...r?skn=#results

Don’t forget FICA, which is an income tax 15.3% , so $6,885.

[Schifference]

Don’t forget FICA, which is an income tax 15.3% , so $6,885.

FICA & Medicare are what add to the 7.35% mentioned. The employer pays half employee pays the other half.
With that scenario, the worker gets back every penny paid in and a couple of hundred extra dollars.



**Edit**Looks like that might have gone up a little since I remembered.


a 6.2 percent Social Security tax; and
a 1.45 percent Medicare tax (the “regular” Medicare tax).

Total would be 7.65% each for both employer and employee.

So in the illustration mentioned total withholding for the employee would be $3442.5 @ the rate of 7.65%
They pay no tax and receive a Refundable child tax credit of $3861
The pay absolutely no tax of any kind and get paid $418.5

[Danke]

FICA & Medicare are what add to the 7.35% mentioned. The employer pays half employee pays the other half.
With that scenario, the worker gets back every penny paid in and a couple of hundred extra dollars.

That is is money paid in your name that could have gone to you instead.

[Zippyjuan]

That is is money paid in your name that could have gone to you instead.

Or could have gone to the share holders or executives.

[Danke]

Or could have gone to the share holders or executives.

Just like corporates taxes could instead go to the employees...

[Zippyjuan]

Just like corporates taxes could instead go to the employees...

They could. In the 1980's the corporate tax rate was cut from 50% to 39%. How did that work out?

[Swordsmyth]

They could. In the 1980's the corporate tax rate was cut from 50% to 39%. How did that work out?

There are many other factors involved.

[Schifference]

That is is money paid in your name that could have gone to you instead.

Agreed.

I highly doubt that if that tax was eliminated employers would give employees a 7.65% raise.

I think Rand wanted to eliminate the employee portion and charge a flat percentage tax to everyone. I don't know the particulars his plan entailed. As you can see in the scenario I presented the employee got back all the FICA tax that was withheld on their behalf and then some and paid zero tax. They are also eligible to collect Social Security if the program still exists.

Another factor that could exist in that scenario is the family would be considered pretty darn low income/poor. If they pursued it they could probably get free health care, food stamps, heating assistance, and possibly housing.

All those entitlements become enticing. Do people want to pull the cart or ride in it?

[Zippyjuan]

Agreed.

I highly doubt that if that tax was eliminated employers would give employees a 7.65% raise.

I think Rand wanted to eliminate the employee portion and charge a flat percentage tax to everyone. I don't know the particulars his plan entailed. As you can see in the scenario I presented the employee got back all the FICA tax that was withheld on their behalf and then some and paid zero tax. They are also eligible to collect Social Security if the program still exists.

Rand would shift that portion to businesses and he would raise the retirement age.

Mine is unique in the sense that my tax plan actually gets rid of the payroll tax as well. It shifts it to the business, and it would allow middle class people to get a tax cut.

I've chosen to get rid of the whole thing, and have one single rate, 14 and a-half percent for everybody, business, and for corporate income, and personal income.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/...l_Security.htm

If business is picking up the half you were paying, they don't have any more money to pass along to you (assuming they would want to and not retain any higher profits to themselves).

[Danke]

Agreed.

I highly doubt that if that tax was eliminated employers would give employees a 7.65% raise.

I think Rand wanted to eliminate the employee portion and charge a flat percentage tax to everyone. I don't know the particulars his plan entailed. As you can see in the scenario I presented the employee got back all the FICA tax that was withheld on their behalf and then some and paid zero tax. They are also eligible to collect Social Security if the program still exists.

Another factor that could exist in that scenario is the family would be considered pretty darn low income/poor. If they pursued it they could probably get free health care, food stamps, heating assistance, and possibly housing.

All those entitlements become enticing. Do people want to pull the cart or ride in it?

Why not? If other competitors are paying it to their employees instead of to the federal government, where do you think they will be sending their resumes?

[PierzStyx]

My taxes are going down in the four figure range, so are specs.. Did you see the thread with the link that had the tax savings calculator? I'll bet you are getting a tax break, too.




Trump never said anything about murdering innocent family members of terrorists.

Your taxes aren't going down. You're getting a Keynesian government "investment" to be paid off by increased debt spending, money printing, and borrowing- all of which Ron Paul has called the most insidious tax of all because it is a hidden tax that destroys the wealth and degrades the worth of every person.

As for Trump talking about murdering families of terrorists:

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox News' “Fox and Friends” in December 2015. “They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.92183d9dbabd

Which he promptly began to do, murdering and slaughtering women and children in drone attacks and military bombings.

But you keep apologizing, supporting, and defending him. Apparently you hav eno problem with supporting a person who purposefully targets and kills civilians, women, and children.

[PierzStyx]

A married couple with 3 kids that gross 45k would have 7.35% of their wages withheld totaling $3307.50. When they file their return they get a $6000 child credit. They have a zero tax liability and get a refund that exceeds what they paid.

Summary Table

Estimated Tax Analysis
Gross income
(subject to personal rates) $45,000
Taxable Pass-Through Income + $0
Qualified plan contributions - $0
Adjusted gross income = $45,000
Standard/Itemized deductions - $24,000
Taxable income = $21,000
Tax liability before credits
(includes taxes on pass-through income) $2,139
Child tax credits - $6,000
Family tax credits - $0
Estimated tax liability = $0
Refundable Child Tax Credit $3,861

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...r?skn=#results

Start off, everything said I was true irregardless of the additional Keynesian multipliers you are able to get. Your actual taxes aren't going down. You're getting a Keynesian government "investment" to be paid off by increased debt spending, money printing, and borrowing- all of which Ron Paul has called the most insidious tax of all because it is a hidden tax that destroys the wealth and degrades the worth of every person. It is all smoke and mirrors.

[dannno]

Your taxes aren't going down. You're getting a Keynesian government "investment" to be paid off by increased debt spending, money printing, and borrowing- all of which Ron Paul has called the most insidious tax of all because it is a hidden tax that destroys the wealth and degrades the worth of every person.

Trump reduced spending from last year, too.

[enhanced_deficit]

If Trump goes, you know who we'll be left with... (shudder).

To be fair, Pence reportedly had planned to team up widely respected neocon Condi Rice.




Pence told RNC he could replace Trump on ticket after 'Access Hollywood' tape came out: report

Vice President Pence reportedly told the Republican National Committee (RNC) that he could replace President Trump on the ballot after the "Access Hollywood" tape surfaced last year.
The Atlantic reported that Pence made clear to the RNC that he could assume the position of the party's nominee.
At the time, there was reportedly talk about making Pence the nominee and former secretary of State Condoleezza Rice his running mate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...t-after-access

[enhanced_deficit]

That is my question, and a serious one...

What is he alleged to have done that rises to an impeachable offense?

Being pissed off by "tweets" is not a cause for impeachment either, as far as I know.

Hard to tell, but if it did happen, probably would be over "corruption" or "obstruction of justice". His ties to Kushner could cost him if reports about his financial dealings are factual.


Trump-Kushner corruption ‘will move front and center this year,’ reporter tells MSNBC

Travis Gettys
11 Jan 2018
Michael Duffy (MSNBC)

President Donald Trump has raised alarms with his authoritarian tendencies — but maybe there’s another word that could be used to describe his anti-democratic urges.
MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” hosted Time deputy managing editor Michael Duffy, who wrote the magazine’s cover story this week on Trump’s first year in office, and USA Today senior politics reporter Heidi Przybyla asked him about the president’s business dealings.
“We’ve talked a lot about 2017, things being autocracy, authoritarianism, but looking forward to 2018, how much do you think the word kleptocracy should start to become part of this discussion?” Przybyla said.
She pointed to her newspaper’s new report Trump companies selling $35 million in real estate last year — mostly to secretive shell companies that Przybyla said opened the president up to influence peddling.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/tru...r-tells-msnbc/

[PierzStyx]

Trump reduced spending from last year, too.

Yet he is still spending billions more than the government has.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) signed into law on December 22, 2017 promises no relief from one big tax on income — the inflation tax. Quite the contrary, there are strong grounds to expect this burden to increase as new and unannounced methods of collection evolve further.

https://mises.org/wire/gops-tax-refo...-inflation-tax

[dannno]

Yet he is still spending billions more than the government has.

Can you at least see how the cartoon you posted is bull$#@!?

[timosman]

Can you at least see how the cartoon you posted is bull$#@!?

PierzStyx is #nevertrump Your attempts to appease him are doomed to fail.

[enhanced_deficit]

Both Ireland-based gambling company Paddy Power and New Zealand–based prediction market PredictIt have increased the likelihood of Trump being impeached
before his term ends at the beginning of 2021.

The oddsmakers at PredictIt, which handles its betting differently than Paddy Power does, are a bit more bullish on Trump's chances of avoiding impeachment
and remaining president through the end of his first term. Still, its odds have also shortened over the past couple of days.
"There's a 37% chance @realDonaldTrump will be impeached."

When PredictIt’s markets opened on January 2, the day the first excerpts from Wolff's book were released, you could make a 33-cent bet on Trump being impeached in his first term, putting PredictIt’s odds at approximately 2-to-1.
On January 4, that number rose as high as 39 cents before plateauing at its current price of 37 cents.

REVIEW: GRAMMYS Tone-deaf, out of touch mess...

DID HILLARY POISON SHOW?




This is crazy merger of politics and entertainment by hollywood.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tk65hgjTwM

[Madison320]

Trump reduced spending from last year, too.

Where'd you hear that? Spending for CY 2016 = 3.82T, CY 2017=4.02T

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MTSO133FMS