This business with the NYT (New York Times) is not a courtroom proceeding against Donald J. Trump or "DJT Enterprises."
NYT reports that there are large discrepancies... well, here: The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses.
WHAT TAX RECORDS?
Do you mean the mythical, magical, fairy tale "tax records" that the New York Slimes won't show anybody?
Do you mean the "tax records" that nobody has proven even exist?
Timothy L. O'Brien is a senior columnist for Bloomberg Opinion and the author of "TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald".
Because of the paramount national importance of this issue, I have taken the unusual step (unusual, for me) of duplicating the entire article, so the remainder of this message is text that I have copied from Bloomberg.
" In a tour de force of hard won reporting, the New York Times has put numerical clothing on what we’ve known about President Donald Trump for decades — that, at best, he’s a haphazard businessman, human billboard and serial bankruptcy artist who gorges on debt he may have a hard time repaying.
The Times, in a news story published Sunday evening that disclosed [information gleaned from] years of the president’s tax returns, also put a lot of clothing on things we didn’t know. Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, the year he was elected president, and the same amount the following year, when he entered the White House. In many years recently he hasn’t paid anything at all. He has played so fast and loose with the taxman that he’s entangled in an audit. He paid his daughter Ivanka lush consulting fees that he deducted as a business expense even though she helped him manage the Trump Organization. And he’s taken questionable tax write-offs on everything from getting his hair coifed to managing his personal residences.
Step away from the tragicomic tawdriness and grift that the tax returns define, however, and focus on what they reveal about Trump as the most powerful man in the world and occupant of the Oval Office.
Due to his indebtedness, his reliance on income from overseas and his refusal to authentically distance himself from his hodgepodge of business, Trump represents a profound national security threat – a threat that will only escalate if he’s re-elected. The tax returns also show the extent to which Trump has repeatedly betrayed the interests of many of the average Americans who elected him and remain his most loyal supporters.
I have some history with Trump and his taxes. Trump sued me for libel in 2006 for a biography I wrote, “TrumpNation,” claiming the book misrepresented his track record as a businessman and lowballed the size of his fortune. He lost the suit in 2011. During the litigation, Trump resisted releasing his tax returns and other financial records. My lawyers got the returns, and while I can’t disclose specifics of what I saw, I imagine that Trump has always refused to release them because they would reveal how [far from] robust his businesses and finances actually are and shine a light on some of his foreign sources of income. The Times has now solved that problem for us.
According to the Times, Trump has about $421 million in debts which he has personally guaranteed and which are coming due over the next several years. This is consistent with earlier reporting about how much debt he carries, a chunk of which could be gleaned from the personal financial disclosures he is required to file with the federal government. But Trump’s overall indebtedness is greater than the Times tally, I believe.
Russ Choma reported in Mother Jones last summer that Trump’s debts were nearly $500 million and would come due in relatively short order, pressuring the president’s finances. But Trump’s debts are even bigger than that, and he’s worked hard to keep them hidden for decades. Dan Alexander, a senior editor at Forbes, has been covering Trump’s business interests since 2016 and has a new book out about the president’s financial conflicts of interest, “White House Inc.” Alexander, in a helpful tally he shared Sunday evening, estimates Trump’s total indebtedness to be about $1.1 billion. Now that’s more like it.
Trump has been bloviating about being worth $10 billion ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race, a figure that simply isn’t true. He’s worth a fraction of that amount, and the larger his indebtedness becomes, the more strain it puts on his assets. The Covid-19 pandemic has taken a particularly brutal toll on the sectors in which the Trump Organization operates — real estate, travel and leisure. If Trump is unable to meet his debt payments, he’s either going to have to sell assets or get bailed out by a friend with funds. Trump has never liked to sell anything, even when it’s hemorrhaging money. So if he’s tempted to save himself by getting a handout, that makes him a mark.
If Trump was still just a reality TV oddity, that wouldn’t be earthshaking. But he’s president, and the trade-offs someone like him would be willing to make to save his face and his wallet taint every public policy decision he makes – including issues around national security. If Vladimir Putin, for example, can backchannel a loan or a handout to the president, how hard is Trump going to be on Russia? Not that we should worry about Trump’s relationship with Putin. That’s just a hypothetical question.
Trump’s own history of avoiding tax payments – and often paying nothing -- is the other issue that should alarm the president’s supporters. Trump and the Republican Party engineered a massive tax cut in 2017 that largely benefitted the most affluent Americans and the largest corporations in the U.S. Now we learn that the president who pushed a tax cut that didn’t deliver the economic stimulus he claimed it would, but feathered the nests of the most privileged, has rarely paid taxes in recent years.
Trump paid $750 in taxes the year he was elected! That’s way less than the $130,000 in hush money he paid Stormy Daniels. In 2012, Trump criticized Barack Obama for “only” paying $161,950 in taxes. That’s a lot more than $750 too! And it’s a lot more than the $0 in taxes Trump frequently paid.
Trump even paid far less than his really wealthy buddies. As Times reporter David Leonhardt noted, “Over the past two decades, Mr. Trump has paid about $400 million less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year.” It’s even more troubling when you compare Trump’s tax payments to an American household earning about $75,000 in 2016. Those folks paid about $14,000 in federal income taxes — which is also a lot more than $750.
Anyone buying Trump’s tripe about looking out for the little guy while he occupies the White House, or who takes their lives in their hands attending one of his Covid-19-defying campaign rallies, should bear in mind one of the many things the Times’s reporting substantiates: The president of the United States is in it only for himself, and he’s laughing all the way to the bank. And he’s laughing at you, too.
"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-04-2020).]
This thread continues to be a "Pot Stirrers" fantasy until some proof is provided. Opinion pieces that only submit previously unproven accusations have a value equivalent to used toilet paper. Please follow CDC guidelines and wash your hands for at least 20 seconds and please flush that toilet after use. Opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and they all stink. I include my own unproven opinions in that.
Most people pay way too many taxes anyway. Roll back government agencies and the taxes on people.
The lifetime criminals in Congress getting their family rich and enriching themselves is one reason Trump was elected (like Pelosi's husband as an example). But he's not an effective President. He's a businessman and I don't want my government run like a business. It's not supposed to profit and grow more powerful like a business. He needs to ball-gag Ivanka and boot Jarrod and find quality replacements. Boot Barr while he's at it.
I don't care what Trump paid in taxes under a system legistated by someone else. Warren Buffet said he paid less than his secretary, I believe.
Most people pay way too many taxes anyway. Roll back government agencies and the taxes on people.
The lifetime criminals in Congress getting their family rich and enriching themselves is one reason Trump was elected (like Pelosi's husband as an example). But he's not an effective President. He's a businessman and I don't want my government run like a business. It's not supposed to profit and grow more powerful like a business. He needs to ball-gag Ivanka and boot Jarrod and find quality replacements. Boot Barr while he's at it.
I don't care what Trump paid in taxes under a system legistated by someone else. Warren Buffet said he paid less than his secretary, I believe.
Speeders generally irritate me because of a lot of them have arrogance thinking their speed overrules everyone else's right of way, but what can be done about rectifying their flaws? I do it until I'm in the clear. But try not to cause someone else a harm.
I try not to watch what is presented as news today (corporate, for-profit news), but when I see some issue discussed it's always with a leftist angle. Today it's people being arrested and jailed for defending themselves for standing up for normal behavior while the perps aren't charged for violent attacks
There's too many laws about stuff the government shouldn't be involved in. I'm not a progressive and not a liberal. Unless it's being a classical liberal meanng I don't care if you want to grow personal items for your own use on your own land. In fact I should be able to grow my own corn, produce alcohol to fuel my car on public roads.
Wait, I'd be a tax cheat. Think I'm ok with that.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 10-04-2020).]
What "blackrams" and others here are looking away from is the reality that this is not a criminal trial of "New York Times V Donald J. Trump" that requires the presentation of a prosecutor's case that is convincing of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is politics. This is a national elections cycle.
What has President Trump ever said or done to dispel or cast serious doubt on the veracity of this New York Times reporting?
Where's the transparency from Trump's side? The publication of the relevant documents, including (likely) tax returns, banking records and other balance sheets that would dispel the reporters' description of the President as a literal "Human Conflict of Interest" with loan obligations that are conspicuously outsized, relative to the revenues and assets that are comprised by his international business empire?
There is no legal requirement for President Trump to be transparent about his business enterprises, his personal wealth and his financial exposure in terms of loan obligations.
Just as there is no legal requirement for anyone to vote for him or otherwise aid in his reelection campaign, and no legal requirement for anyone to refrain from opining about him in this one obscure little corner (Pennock's) of the Internet world.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-04-2020).]
Is it wrong that I'd like to see Trump and Biden in a winner take all WWE Smack Down event? A tag-team one with Pence and Harris too.
Ok, but you gotta give me odds, because one side cheats, and the other side whines.
Give me 2-1 on Biden to win (Biden’s old & feeble, but just like most bullies, Trump’s a pussy. Hit him once and he’ll go right to sucking his thumb in the corner.
The Pence/Harris fight card is a little tougher. Pence is a Religious Zellot just crazed enough to pull it off, but I think Harris’s natural hatred of men could really play hell on a set of balls.
I’ll take Pence to win. It’s hard to beat crazy.
Bush/Clinton should be the announcers, with their wives as the ring girls.
What "blackrams" and others here are looking away from is the reality that this is not a criminal trial of "New York Times V Donald J. Trump" that requires the presentation of a prosecutor's case that is convincing of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
This is politics. This is a national elections cycle.
What has President Trump ever said or done to dispel or cast serious doubt on the veracity of this New York Times reporting?
Where's the transparency from Trump's side? The publication of the relevant documents, including (likely) tax returns, banking records and other balance sheets that would dispel the reporters' description of the President as a literal "Human Conflict of Interest" with loan obligations that are conspicuously outsized, relative to the revenues and assets that are comprised by his international business empire?
There is no legal requirement for President Trump to be transparent about his business enterprises, his personal wealth and his financial exposure in terms of loan obligations.
Just as there is no legal requirement for anyone to vote for him or otherwise aid in his reelection campaign, and no legal requirement for anyone to refrain from opining about him in this one obscure little corner (Pennock's) of the Internet world.
A fine example of fake news, fake logic and the age old ploy of children.....he did this.....with no proof.
Fakery, chicanery.......liars spreading lies if there is no proof.
What "blackrams" and others here are looking away from is the reality that this is not a criminal trial of "New York Times V Donald J. Trump" that requires the presentation of a prosecutor's case that is convincing of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. ....
Seriously?! You're using that to defend the Slimes?
It's a hatchet job. And that's all that it is.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 10-04-2020).]
A fine example of fake news, fake logic and the age old ploy of children.....he did this.....with no proof.
Fakery, chicanery.......liars spreading lies if there is no proof.
It isn't as though the "Noo Yawk Slimes" hasn't been caught lying about the President many times before, but the willingness of LEFTISTS to believe and regurgitate their crap time after time is bewildering.
It's either gullibility on an amazing level or it's "participatory dishonesty" or some of both.
No rational, reasonable, adult can be lied to so many times and still rely on the same source as credible.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-04-2020).]
"Dr. Sarin is an assistant professor at Penn Law and the Wharton School of Business."
Just for good measure.
So fix the tax laws. There have been people in office for over 40 years. If its still an issue then why is it only an issue now for a sitting president that they disagree with? Honest question. Because I don't think the president is responsible for tax code.
" The agency doesn’t have the resources to battle the tax lawyers of the ultrarich. Trump’s returns are just one example of how little the wealthy pay."
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: So fix the tax laws. There have been people in office for over 40 years. If its still an issue then why is it only an issue now for a sitting president that they disagree with?
Honest question. Because I don't think the president is responsible for tax code.
I can't say that a Biden Harris administration strikes me as a "sure thing" in terms of improving the nation's tax codes and the functionality of the IRS.
I think there's somewhat more hope for it, vs. a second term for President Trump and Vice President Pence.
The idea that this is an issue that was just publicized the other day, by this one opinion column in the NYT--which is kind of what seems to be being expressed here--I can't imagine it being much of a chore to let all the air out of that idea. Just use an online search engine to find previous reports from bygone years like the one that I just presented.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-04-2020).]
I can't say that a Biden Harris administration strikes me as a "sure thing" in terms of improving the nation's tax codes and the functionality of the IRS.
I think there's somewhat more hope for it, vs. a second term for President Trump and Vice President Pence.
The idea that this is an issue that was just publicized the other day, by this one opinion column in the NYT--which is kind of what seems to be being expressed here--I can't imagine it being much of a chore to let all the air out of that idea. Just use an online search engine to find previous reports from bygone years like the one that I just presented.
It's a better use of time to ignore your BS posts and the drivel from the NYT.
......by this one opinion column in the NYT--which........
Which is speculative horse-crap, about invisible "tax returns" that are FAIRY TALES, that was written by a VERY privileged and very young woman who attended both Harvard AND Yale and doesn't actually teach law and hasn't passed her state's Bar Exam.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
I can't say that a Biden Harris administration strikes me as a "sure thing" in terms of improving the nation's tax codes and the functionality of the IRS.
Neither can anyone else because CONGRESS writes the tax laws.......
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-05-2020).]
It's a better use of time to ignore your BS posts and the drivel from the NYT.
But, you do you....it's your time to waste.
Yet you felt the need to...what...tell him you’re wasting even more time telling him you’re wasting time reading something you don’t want to read?
Or is it simply to give him permission to spend his own time as he sees fit?
I mean, why are you telling him all this? This all seems like your problem.
P.S. Before Hitler got going, the first thing he did was label the free-press “Drivel”.
Oh, I get it. You only want “News” that aligns with your already preconceived notion of what you WANT it to say. Anything that challenges that is “drivel”.
So President Trump has more on his plate than hospital food.
I saw some days ago, after the New York Times published this latest report about the President's tax filing history and related matters on September 27, where President Trump was on camera and said "Fake news."
What if he wanted to address the Times report in a larger way?
I think he could--"with a little help from his friends"--come out with his own op-ed column!
It would present the President's business and personal financial history and current status with "positive spin." The many people that have benefited from their connection to Donald J. Trump through the years, and how they have benefited. Numbers. Examples. Anecdotal material. The details that would linger in a reader's mind.
He could set it up that way, as the overarching narrative, and then (maybe) deal with some of the "points" that were raised in the Times report.
How perfect is that?
Would the Times managing editor allow it to be published in the NYT op-ed section? I could see it. "In the interest of fairness." Maybe the Times business managers would see it as a "plus." But if not the Times, there have to be other newspapers that would go with it. The Wall Street Journal?
Is that thinking outside of the box or what?
Even if it doesn't seem important in terms of the Presidential election, it would be something for the Trump Presidential Library.
I hope that Bill Stepien (or someone who knows him) is "lurking" this forum and reading this message.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-05-2020).]
Yet you felt the need to...what...tell him you’re wasting even more time telling him you’re wasting time reading something you don’t want to read?
Or is it simply to give him permission to spend his own time as he sees fit?
I mean, why are you telling him all this? This all seems like your problem.
P.S. Before Hitler got going, the first thing he did was label the free-press “Drivel”.
Oh, I get it. You only want “News” that aligns with your already preconceived notion of what you WANT it to say. Anything that challenges that is “drivel”.
Originally posted by Hudini: Probably go over as well as Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed piece. The snowflakes just will not have any opinion different than their own.
I was being mostly facetious there--but not entirely.
The idea of an op-ed column in the New York Times or some other iconic newspaper, from the President of the United States--while that person is the POTUS--it just kind of "grabbed me."
Did Obama do one of those, while he was President? Maybe more than just one?
I'd have to look.
I did (just now) look at Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed column in the New York Times. I remember "hearing" about it at the time, but I didn't pay any special attention to it at the time.
I see where the Times published the Senator's op-ed column, and then came back to it and said (in print) that they (the Times) had not done a proper job of working with the Senator on edits and revisions to ensure that the op-ed column came all the way up to the Time's expectations for an op-ed column. A "mea culpa" there, from the New York Times.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-05-2020).]
I know it was by accident that this thread got bumped... but figured I'd add my last two cents here (if it doesn't die after this...)
Trump has clearly been successful. He's had a nationally syndicated TV show, hundreds of hotels that bear his name (either as franchises, or wholly owned), there are numerous resorts around the world that bear his name, mostly entirely owned by him, and he has several other business ventures. He's also the President of the United States.
Significant losses on a tax return means one thing... he took a risk... and other people made money as a result of it. Either way, he had money to lose, and he invested in businesses, not all of which succeeded. Up until his election, I passed the Trump Doral in South Florida resort every day. Any time I cruised up and down A1A in Fort Lauderdale to Miami, I passed at least 2 or 3 huge Trump buildings. To suggest he's not successful is kind of silly.
There are three ways that members of congress and senate become millionaires. 1 - They marry someone wealthy, and then use the family's money to pay for their campaign to get them into office. 2 - They are lucky enough to make it into office as poor people, and magically come out as millionaires (explain this one to me). 3 - They found a successful business retire and / or sell, and then run for office and be successful.
We know Trump is an example of #3. We know that people like John Kerry are an example of #1. We should all despise #2. President Obama was an example of #2, as was Hillary Clinton, as was about 90% of the House and Senate. So... which would you rather have? Serious question to everyone. I'm really happy with #3.
