"Donald Trump Reports He’s Getting Rich as President"

[UpperLimits]

Is that why the handful of business owners who actually matter in such things keep getting richer while everybody else is working more hours for less pay and benefits?

Has it occurred to you that most of North America is only recently moving out of a major recession? Things are getting better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Has it occurred to you that most of North America is only recently moving out of a major recession? Things are getting better.

We have been. However, the bulk of this recovery has went straight to the top while the middle class continues to dwindle as it has done since the beginning of the recession.
And, FYI, that beginning to move out of it happened several years ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This whole topic is just silly. But it demonstrates the mentality of the left wing naysayers who will do anything at all, with no reservations whatsoever, in order to condemn Trump.

It's simply logical that Trump would be making big bucks. Since taking office the market has skyrocketed. In the past 4 months, even I have been able to make up all of my losses from the past 8 years under Obama, AND THEN profit on top of that. Business is doing well. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their political blinders off. One would have to be incredibly naive to think that Trump would not have been invested in the market. Of course he's getting rich - DUH!!!

There are two big issues:

- his conflicts of interest.
- his directly profiting through his own decisions.

We aren't just talking about a president who has a bunch of index funds in a blind trust; we're talking about a president who is charging the Secret Service rent for being in the building he owns protecting his family, and who even charges the Secret Service a rental fee for the golf cart that his security detail uses to follow him around while he's playing golf at a golf club he owns.

 

[Underhill]

What? A president cannot be a businessman?

Like a lawyer would be less nefarious I suppose.

Yea. That's it.

A president is not supposed to make money off being the president. It obviously creates a conflict in interest. They are supposed to be beholden to the voters and constitution, not to those who throw money at them. This is not a margin call or some ambiguity. It has always been the law of the land (at least since 1788).

https://constitutioncenter.org/inte...clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8/clause/34

 

[tytlyf]

Oh, you mean like corporate tax breaks that put money back into businesses so they can afford to continue to operate, expand and hire new people, instead of loading it into government coffers?? The scoundrel!!!!

Trickle down doesn't work. You're supporting corporate policies over the middle class. Giving corporations tax breaks is 'good' because jobs and stuff.....right? That's how they trick you.

Tax breaks don't create jobs, they enhance profits. The middle class are the job creators with their purchasing power.

If you're in the middle class, how do you benefit voting GOP?

 

[Falvlun]

You think it's markedly different from the major scandal revolving around Obama and his open interests made in Solyndra while he was a sitting president, or the open buyouts and financial vestment made into major airline and auto industries?

The schematics seem fairly similar to me.

I don't think Trump is going to suffer any repercussions, at least no more than Obama did when in office, and subsequent departure as president once his term ended.

See, this is exactly the sort of pathetic conspiracy theories conservatives had to peddle during the Obama years since there actually wasn't much of substance to complain about. There is no comparison with the actual level of conflict displayed by Trump.

You are comparing Solyndra, a company that Obama doesn't own, run, or have financial stakes in, with Trump's business empire. Yeah, super similar.

The only ties Solyndra had to Obama was that some of their stakeholders contributed money to his campaign. Funny how Republicans love Citizens United until democrats get some money. Worse for your argument still, the accusations came from an attack ad (yeah, super unbiased) that listed George Kaiser as the biggest Solyndra donor, but there's the petty fact that Kaiser is neither a shareholder or executive in Solyndra. So, they literally just made up the scandal.

In terms of exposing Republican hypocrisy, your example gets better and better. The Republicans investigated this scandal. Because, you know, such a conflict of interest was important to Republicans at the time. There was no evidence found that Obama approved the loan to help his "friends at Solyndra" or to financially benefit himself.

I love how the whole Solyndra thing got you so worked up you still bring it up, but when a President who literally still financially benefits from all of his businesses, of which some are overseas, some are directly being paid by taxpayers, and some could undoubtedly be used to curry favor with the President, your response is "So what?"

If you had a problem with Solyndra, where there was no evidence of financial ties to Obama, how much more should you be outraged in regards to Trump?

 

[metis]

You think it's markedly different from the major scandal revolving around Obama and his open interests made in Solyndra while he was a sitting president, or the open buyouts and financial vestment made into major airline and auto industries?

So, you think that Obama should have just let the auto industry collapse, which employs about 1/6 of the total U.S. labor force?

The CBO warned that it would be far more costly for the government to allow them to collapse versus "bailing" them out, plus they said it could have driven us far deeper into a recession-- or even worse.

BTW, can you explain exactly how the bailouts constitute a "scandal"? Are all subsidies of any type automatically "scandals", iyo?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, you think that Obama should have just let the auto industry collapse, which employs about 1/6 of the total U.S. labor force?

The CBO warned that it would be far more costly for the government to allow them to collapse versus "bailing" them out, plus they said it could have driven us far deeper into a recession-- or even worse.

BTW, can you explain exactly how the bailouts constitute a "scandal"? Are all subsidies of any type automatically "scandals", iyo?

Markets rebound all the time. One business goes under, another takes it's place. Problem with government intervention is it protracts those same reasons they need help in and ends up wasting more taxpayer dollars to keep failing enterprises afloat. Government bailouts are pretty much legalised scandals helping no one in the long term. Leaving the mess for the next generation to pass along.

 

[Falvlun]

So, you think that Obama should have just let the auto industry collapse, which employs about 1/6 of the total U.S. labor force?

The CBO warned that it would be far more costly for the government to allow them to collapse versus "bailing" them out, plus they said it could have driven us far deeper into a recession-- or even worse.

BTW, can you explain exactly how the bailouts constitute a "scandal"? Are all subsidies of any type automatically "scandals", iyo?

Exactly. Disagreeing with a policy doesn't make it a scandal.

And unless he's arguing that Obama somehow personally benefited from bailing out the auto industry there's no similarity between this issue and that presented by Trump personally and directly benefitting from the Presidency.

And if they do think that somehow the bailout is analogous to Trump being allowed to funnel taxpayer money to his personal businesses, then holy hypocrisy, Batman! Because where's their outrage over Trump, if they're still crying foul over the bailout?

 

[UpperLimits]

Trickle down doesn't work. You're supporting corporate policies over the middle class. Giving corporations tax breaks is 'good' because jobs and stuff.....right? That's how they trick you.

Tax breaks don't create jobs, they enhance profits. The middle class are the job creators with their purchasing power.

Trick me?? LOL. Look: Corporations are in business to make money. If they don't make money they go broke. It's THAT simple!! Of course they enhance profits. (Yikes!!)

If you're in the middle class, how do you benefit voting GOP?

I don't. I'm not an American. I don't vote in your elections. However, I have not been left out of the "fun"... I have my own batch of morons to contend with.

 

[UpperLimits]

There are two big issues:

- his conflicts of interest.
- his directly profiting through his own decisions.

We aren't just talking about a president who has a bunch of index funds in a blind trust; we're talking about a president who is charging the Secret Service rent for being in the building he owns protecting his family, and who even charges the Secret Service a rental fee for the golf cart that his security detail uses to follow him around while he's playing golf at a golf club he owns.

I have to agree with you, it does sound a bit extreme when framed in that fashion. But, OTOH, if it were another person (who was president and) using his services, you'd have no issue whatsoever. Or would you still expect Trump to provide free rent and carts to the secret service?

The ONLY reason you're raising an objection is because it's Trump himself who's receiving the protection from the secret service. But as part of his job he's REQUIRED to have the entourage of people around him. No other president has footed that bill. Why should Trump be the first? As long as the bills are for regular products and within reasonable amounts (ie not inflated beyond all reason), I see no need for an objection.

 

[UpperLimits]

And, FYI, that beginning to move out of it happened several years ago.

In some areas, yes. In others, we're still waiting for it to come back.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In some areas, yes. In others, we're still waiting for it to come back.

No, it's that waiting for things to actually trickle down with expansions and good jobs with good pay and benefits that's going on. The upper echelons have prospered the most since Obama, and have taken most of the recovery for themselves. They have had years to turn the faucets on now. And it's not just Obama, it's been going on since before Reagan convinced the nation that is the way. "Just be a good cog" is the real heart and soul of "trickle down" economics. And why should it? "Rational self-interests" seems to have them not wanting to turn the faucets on, because those with power of not often to just give it away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have to agree with you, it does sound a bit extreme when framed in that fashion. But, OTOH, if it were another person (who was president and) using his services, you'd have no issue whatsoever. Or would you still expect Trump to provide free rent and carts to the secret service?

The ONLY reason you're raising an objection is because it's Trump himself who's receiving the protection from the secret service. But as part of his job he's REQUIRED to have the entourage of people around him. No other president has footed that bill. Why should Trump be the first? As long as the bills are for regular products and within reasonable amounts (ie not inflated beyond all reason), I see no need for an objection.

I don't think you get my point. When in DC, he chooses to play golf at the Trump National Golf Club - despite there being other golf clubs closer to the White House that other presidents have found just fine - because when he goes to the golf club he owns, he personally profits from all the expenses that the presidential entourage racks up.

He prefers to use Mar-a-Lago as his retreat instead of Camp David - which is closer to DC and has better security - because at Camp David, he doesn't personally profit from being there.

I'm not saying that the president should have to pay for his security detail; I'm saying that he shouldn't be using his security detail as a profit centre. He's in a clear conflict of interest. Using his office this way for personal benefit is unethical; for any other public official, it would be illegal.

Effectively, Trump is getting kickbacks from the Trump Organization to favour the Trump Organization over other businesses in the procurement of services for government.

Now do you see the problem?

 

[Underhill]

Markets rebound all the time. One business goes under, another takes it's place. Problem with government intervention is it protracts those same reasons they need help in and ends up wasting more taxpayer dollars to keep failing enterprises afloat. Government bailouts are pretty much legalised scandals helping no one in the long term. Leaving the mess for the next generation to pass along.

Yes, except we aren't talking about a laundromat, but massive companies that employ tens of thousands of people. Vastly more than the coal industry.

Development time to become competitive takes time. With that time GM has become competitive, and now are doing well in spite of some old issues. Chrysler less so, but they are at least profitable again.

 

[metis]

Markets rebound all the time. One business goes under, another takes it's place.

But in this case we were on a rapid downward spiral whereas we were losing over 700,000 jobs in one month alone. It's like saying that if a child was drowning that there's no need to do anything-- just let him go because people drown all the time anyway.

Capitalism is a good system but it's not a perfect one, and any economist, including conservative ones, will tell you that governments do realize there are times they must intervene because the consequences can be so severe if they don't.

Problem with government intervention is it protracts those same reasons they need help in and ends up wasting more taxpayer dollars to keep failing enterprises afloat.

So, the CBO is wrong and you're right on this. Got it.

Government bailouts are pretty much legalised scandals helping no one in the long term. Leaving the mess for the next generation to pass along.

It can be that way if not handled properly, but the reality is that what we did under the direction of Bernanke, who is considered the world's foremost expert on what's called "depression economics", and who also is a Republican, we did what had to be done. Paulson in the Bush administration, who also is a Republican, said the same thing.

Both Paulson and Bernanke told Congress that if we didn't throw money in to stop the bleeding that we could literally watch our economy collapse, and some economists felt that we could bottom out worse than when we had the Great Depression.

We do not have a perfect system, and fortunately even some of the Republicans, including Bush, realized this and began to take actions to stop the "freefall".

 

[metis]

Development time to become competitive takes time. With that time GM has become competitive, and now are doing well in spite of some old issues. Chrysler less so, but they are at least profitable again.

Exactly. And what some people don't understand is that the entire domestic auto market was in jeopardy because the CBO concluded that many of the auto parts manufacturers would go under, and they also supply the foreign transplants that are assembled here. And then there's local dealerships that would shut down, laying even more off.

What some on the right who are not educated in economics don't understand is that no economic system is perfect, and that includes our form of mixed-economy that we have here in the States. And historical attempts with laissez-faire capitalism proved so unstable that no country today even tries to use it.

 

[UpperLimits]

I don't think you get my point. When in DC, he chooses to play golf at the Trump National Golf Club - despite there being other golf clubs closer to the White House that other presidents have found just fine - because when he goes to the golf club he owns, he personally profits from all the expenses that the presidential entourage racks up.

He prefers to use Mar-a-Lago as his retreat instead of Camp David - which is closer to DC and has better security - because at Camp David, he doesn't personally profit from being there.

I'm not saying that the president should have to pay for his security detail; I'm saying that he shouldn't be using his security detail as a profit centre. He's in a clear conflict of interest. Using his office this way for personal benefit is unethical; for any other public official, it would be illegal.

Effectively, Trump is getting kickbacks from the Trump Organization to favour the Trump Organization over other businesses in the procurement of services for government.

Now do you see the problem?

And if Obama had chosen to go to the "Trump National Golf Club" one day instead of his regular haunt, we wouldn't have heard "boo" from anyone. As I said before. The only reason you're crying is because he owns the place. To the best of my knowledge Obama never owned such places, so any real comparison between him and Trump on this matter would be merely hypothetical.

As a challenge for you: Find out if Trump is charging his own round of golf to the government. If he is, I'll consider conceding the point. But for now, I think it's probably just personal preference. He simply likes his own places. And that's just fine by me.

 

[UpperLimits]

No, it's that waiting for things to actually trickle down with expansions and good jobs with good pay and benefits that's going on. The upper echelons have prospered the most since Obama, and have taken most of the recovery for themselves. They have had years to turn the faucets on now. And it's not just Obama, it's been going on since before Reagan convinced the nation that is the way. "Just be a good cog" is the real heart and soul of "trickle down" economics. And why should it? "Rational self-interests" seems to have them not wanting to turn the faucets on, because those with power of not often to just give it away.

Well... sort of.... A lot of these financial things are like the ripples that happen in water when you throw a stone in the pond. There's the initial splash and then it takes time to radiate out. It also comes and goes. There are lots of factors to consider. Local industry for one. With oil still somewhat down, our region is hurting hard. But it's up enough that things are starting to move again, so that's good. Then there's also the problem of a major crop failure in the region last fall. But still, most people are optimistic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if Obama had chosen to go to the "Trump National Golf Club" one day instead of his regular haunt, we wouldn't have heard "boo" from anyone. As I said before. The only reason you're crying is because he owns the place.

EXACTLY!

... but it seems like you still don't understand how this is a problem.

To the best of my knowledge Obama never owned such places, so any real comparison between him and Trump on this matter would be merely hypothetical.

That's right: Trump's business interests give him more opportunities for unethical behaviour, should he choose to take them.

... and he sure chooses to take them.