Durham investigation ends after three years of searching, $40 million spent, and nothing found

#127
#127
BowlBrother85 said:
That is ridiculous.

Nobody forced Trump to hire Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. Pruitt was as corrupt and self-serving as they come. To a lesser extent, so were Tom Price, Ryan Zinke and Wilbur Ross. Nobody forced Trump to steer diplomats to his golf resort and hotel properties either. He tried to have the G 7 Summit held at Doral.

Trump wasn't highly effective at anything, except racking up emoluments clause violations.

Trump lost his re-election bid for a reason ... and the way he chose to handle that defeat was a disgrace. Trump's "alternate elector" scheme to retain the presidency was comically stupid. It speaks to both his immoral character and his lack of intelligence that he actually believed that the Vice President had the unilateral power during the process of formal certification, to refuse to count electoral college votes of his choosing, in effort to have those votes replaced with votes from electors who were chosen by Republican-controlled state legislatures to defy their state's popular vote and for his ticket instead. Does it make sense that a Vice President would have the power to set a scheme in motion, which would reverse the outcome of his own defeat in a democratic system of elections ?

Do Republicans want Kamala Harris to have such power in January of 2025 ? That alternate elector scheme was the most stupid thing ever... but an incredibly stupid person named Donald Trump actually thought it could work.
Click to expand...
You’re assuming it’s an either or, and not a both and.
 
#128
#128
Orangeburst said:
Would you favor a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Click to expand...

Tied to elimination of tax evasion, yes. Just straight up rates, graduated by income, but just no shenanigans. All income treated the same. All corporate income attributed to owners and they are taxed based on their rate.
 
#129
#129
lawgator1 said:
Tied to elimination of tax evasion, yes. Just straight up rates, graduated by income, but just no shenanigans. All income treated the same. All corporate income attributed to owners and they are taxed based on their rate.
Click to expand...


Is the IRS not doing their job?

Maybe. just me..I follow everything to Tee.

What gets me..the rich will be fine with the 87K supplement.

The Fed tax code is an overbloated disgrace.
 
#130
#130
Orangeburst said:
Is the IRS not doing their job?

Maybe. just me..I follow everything to Tee.

What gets me..the rich will be fine with the 87K supplement.

The Fed tax code is an overbloted disgrace.
Click to expand...


Think about how much money the country would save if there wasn't a tax code thousands and thousands of pages long. Think of how much people and businesses would save if it were massively simplified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62, volfanhill and Orangeburst
#131
#131
lawgator1 said:
Think about how much money the country would save if there wasn't a tax code thousands and thousands of pages long. Think of how much people and businesses would save if it were massively simplified.
Click to expand...

It is the inefficiency of government....Healthcare etc.

Bureaucracy is a leach.
 
#132
#132
Balance the budget.
National Sales Tax instead of income tax.
Make both parties pay for these investigations out of their own coffers.
 
#133
#133
lawgator1 said:
Think about how much money the country would save if there wasn't a tax code thousands and thousands of pages long. Think of how much people and businesses would save if it were massively simplified.
Click to expand...

A simple tax code eliminates the biggest tool the government has to control us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62 and DC_Vol
#136
#136
I love the ignorance of some of you "economists." A massive rewrite and simplification of the tax code would be great except for the incredible economic upheaval. You forget that there was a major simplification and rewrite of the tax code in 1986. It took less than 40 years to get to what we have now because of special interest lobbying, by both sides.

Businesses make decisions based on the tax code, sometimes major long-term decisions. If you suddenly take that away, the business has to adapt and sometimes they can't. Imagine you bought a $1 million house based partly on the cash flow from the home mortgage interest deduction, now imagine in your third year, they kill that. What are you going to do? On a 5% loan, $1 million principal, and a 40% tax rate (3 points too high) that's $20,000 less cash in your pocket.

Or do you intend to keep the home mortgage interest deduction? That's a special interest. Oh and just imagine what will happen to the construction industry when people can only afford an $800,000 house instead of the $1 million one.

Go look at the late 80's early 90's after the '86 tax act. That legislation killed most passive activity losses as deductions on individual returns. That in turn killed the syndicated limited partnerships that were out building thousands of office and retail complexes financed by the Savings and Loan companies which in turn suffered huge losses, many of which went under.

All because the tax benefits of a single kind of business transaction were eliminated.

You know, within three years of the effective date of the '86 act, we were in a large recession.

Simplistic solutions often times cause big problems.
 
#137
#137
WBO said:
I love the ignorance of some of you "economists." A massive rewrite and simplification of the tax code would be great except for the incredible economic upheaval. You forget that there was a major simplification and rewrite of the tax code in 1986. It took less than 40 years to get to what we have now because of special interest lobbying, by both sides.

Businesses make decisions based on the tax code, sometimes major long-term decisions. If you suddenly take that away, the business has to adapt and sometimes they can't. Imagine you bought a $1 million house based partly on the cash flow from the home mortgage interest deduction, now imagine in your third year, they kill that. What are you going to do? On a 5% loan, $1 million principal, and a 40% tax rate (3 points too high) that's $20,000 less cash in your pocket.

Or do you intend to keep the home mortgage interest deduction? That's a special interest. Oh and just imagine what will happen to the construction industry when people can only afford an $800,000 house instead of the $1 million one.

Go look at the late 80's early 90's after the '86 tax act. That legislation killed most passive activity losses as deductions on individual returns. That in turn killed the syndicated limited partnerships that were out building thousands of office and retail complexes financed by the Savings and Loan companies which in turn suffered huge losses, many of which went under.

All because the tax benefits of a single kind of business transaction were eliminated.

You know, within three years of the effective date of the '86 act, we were in a large recession.

Simplistic solutions often times cause big problems.
Click to expand...

The bold lets us all know you are not who you claim to be.
 
#138
#138
WBO said:
I love the ignorance of some of you "economists." A massive rewrite and simplification of the tax code would be great except for the incredible economic upheaval. You forget that there was a major simplification and rewrite of the tax code in 1986. It took less than 40 years to get to what we have now because of special interest lobbying, by both sides.

Businesses make decisions based on the tax code, sometimes major long-term decisions. If you suddenly take that away, the business has to adapt and sometimes they can't. Imagine you bought a $1 million house based partly on the cash flow from the home mortgage interest deduction, now imagine in your third year, they kill that. What are you going to do? On a 5% loan, $1 million principal, and a 40% tax rate (3 points too high) that's $20,000 less cash in your pocket.

Or do you intend to keep the home mortgage interest deduction? That's a special interest. Oh and just imagine what will happen to the construction industry when people can only afford an $800,000 house instead of the $1 million one.

Go look at the late 80's early 90's after the '86 tax act. That legislation killed most passive activity losses as deductions on individual returns. That in turn killed the syndicated limited partnerships that were out building thousands of office and retail complexes financed by the Savings and Loan companies which in turn suffered huge losses, many of which went under.

All because the tax benefits of a single kind of business transaction were eliminated.

You know, within three years of the effective date of the '86 act, we were in a large recession.

Simplistic solutions often times cause big problems.
Click to expand...
Economic upheaval?

You look at this CC agenda?
 
#140
#140
WBO said:
Oh yeah, explain please.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would consider the mortgage interest deduction part of their cash flow. Also, someone able to obtain a million dollar mortgage most likely is in an income bracket high enough that $60k of interest deduction (first year) isn't going to make that much of a difference in the amount they owe or get refunded. Plus that interest goes down every year.

Also, business can adapt to almost anything if the rules are clear. Yes, there may be some pain and hard decisions to be made if the tax code was simplified to the point discussed but the vast majority would adapt, survive and be stronger in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#141
#141
WBO said:
Businesses make decisions based on the tax code, sometimes major long-term decisions. If you suddenly take that away, the business has to adapt and sometimes they can't. Imagine you bought a $1 million house based partly on the cash flow from the home mortgage interest deduction, now imagine in your third year, they kill that. What are you going to do? On a 5% loan, $1 million principal, and a 40% tax rate (3 points too high) that's $20,000 less cash in your pocket.

Or do you intend to keep the home mortgage interest deduction? That's a special interest. Oh and just imagine what will happen to the construction industry when people can only afford an $800,000 house instead of the $1 million one.
Click to expand...

some funky example here. Did I buy the million dollar home with no down payment? ($1 million principal). If I'm in the 40% tax bracket (which I don't believer there is an exactly 40% bracket) why would I buy a million home with no down payment?

to the larger point - a simplified tax doesn't mean the lose of deductions like mortgage interest effect goes away. the tax payer may ultimately have the same total tax liability and hence their cash flow is unaffected by the switch to a simplified plan.

same as the SALT limitation - unless you live in a high tax state your total tax liability probably went down due to rates going down even though your deductions my have also gone down. the result is increased cash rather than reduced even though you deduct less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and hog88
#144
#144
I am loving this. A week or two ago all the Repubs on here were praising Durham, guess it's not universal. If I understand it, Gaetz is saying that Durham must be part of the Deep State conspiracy because he couldn't prove what they wanted him to prove.

Classic.
 
#146
#146
You need to go look at Schiff's questioning of Durham yesterday. Basically he got Durham to say that there was Russian meddling in the 2016 election and it favored Trump.

This guy is great entertainment, a buffoon as an investigator, but very entertaining.
 
#148
#148
WBO said:
I am loving this. A week or two ago all the Repubs on here were praising Durham, guess it's not universal. If I understand it, Gaetz is saying that Durham must be part of the Deep State conspiracy because he couldn't prove what they wanted him to prove.

Classic.
Click to expand...
I have said this before... Durham is in the same club as all of them are. None of these investigations yield anything but a bunch of taxpayer money for the investigators and their cronies. We are all being taken for a ride by a corrupt government.
 
#150
#150
WBO said:
You need to go look at Schiff's questioning of Durham yesterday. Basically he got Durham to say that there was Russian meddling in the 2016 election and it favored Trump.

This guy is great entertainment, a buffoon as an investigator, but very entertaining.
Click to expand...

dbbfd0bc730886f775c7d3f4b25b4895.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top