Trump delivers State of The Union address (2/5)

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
NYT and Washington Post are 'fact checking' Trump.. but I don't believe either of these two.
Do you not believe the claims that they rank as false, or are the true ones suspect as well? Just curious.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/us/politics/fact-check-state-of-the-union.html

For example...
“We have created 5.3 million new jobs and importantly added 600,000 new manufacturing jobs — something which almost everyone said was impossible to do, but the fact is, we are just getting started.”

This is false.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that since January 2017, when Mr. Trump took office, the economy has added 4.9 million jobs, including 454,000 jobs manufacturing jobs. Far from being “impossible,” that is closely comparable to the pace of job creation during some two-year periods during the Obama administration, and significantly slower than the pace of job creation in manufacturing in the 1990s.

Wages were “growing for blue-collar workers, who I promised to fight for. They are growing faster than anyone thought possible.”

This is true.
Wages are rising faster for construction and manufacturing workers than workers in service occupations, according to the Labor Department.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,454
1,910
365

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
For the last two years they have injected their opinions into "fact checks." That is not how "fact checking" works if the "fact checker" is being intellectually honest about what they are doing.
So, your answer to my question was....?
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
For the last two years they have injected their opinions into "fact checks." That is not how "fact checking" works if the "fact checker" is being intellectually honest about what they are doing.
*Blah blah* is what Trump said. Lets us tell you what it means.

Fucking hate that kind of journalism.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
I will admit that in the case of the usual Joe Schmo, I don't know how an estate's worth is calculated, or if it even is, so I don't know how exactly that would work. But I do think that if you're inheriting something of value (over a certain amount, a zero dollar floor probably wouldn't work), or just a big hunk o' money, then yes, you should pay a tax on it.
Since you're up front that you're not sure exactly how it all works oh, I'm going to ask a very basic question. Why is your default position that the government deserves a chunk?


Come on, man. I was asking a genuine question here. No need to be an ass.

My wife and I own a house because we need shelter and it's a better use our money vs. renting. We didn't purchase the house as something to be passed down to an heir.

We own cars to get us from place to place, and the biggest factor in our purchase wasn't resale value, like I know it is with some people, but what's best for us getting around in the shitty winters here.

We invest in retirement accounts to provide for us after we're done working for The Man.

We're not collectors of any sort. No baseball cards, stamps, etc.

We live simply, I guess. So the idea of purchasing "things" to just have and then pass down doesn't make any sense to me.
So let's use you as an example. You are a married couple with no kids, and no plans to have kids. You and your wife both make fifty grand a year. At 100k total, you buy a house at 250k.

You dont live beyond your means. You're responsible. Unlike many families you carry no debt other than your mortgage. And, as you age into the retirement years you even manage to pay that off.

You and your spouse are so responsible that you even managed to save over a million dollars towards your nest egg, and are planning to live on about 5% of that annually, say 50-60k a year through retirement. [Aka, just "a big hunk o' money" as per your post].

As evidenced by your fiscal responsibility, you were actually a better investor than you thought. Your neighborhood has improved, and by the time you're 60 your house is worth 1.25 million.

Not bad right? You're millionaire. Your assets and bank account are worth a bit over two and a half million dollars. That's more money than you ever conceived of making the salaries you made. You don't actually feel rich, of course, because you're living within your means and the vast majority of your wealth is tied up in retirement Investments. Being a millionaire on paper isn't as big of a deal as it sounded.

Unfortunately, at 65 you stroke out. Your wife has the house and that 60k per year investment account, which is as we said has a combined worth north of 2 and 1/2 million dollars.

What percent of this are you okay with the government taking from her? Note that if she pays via the principal of her account, it will severely damage the long-term payout of your life's savings. But if she doesn't, she will lose the house that you guys bought and paid for decades ago.

Do you seriously trust the government to do right with your money over the needs of your wife? Now imagine you have kids in the mix, like many Americans do. Maybe a small business worth $ 8 million that you and your wife built from the ground up. Are you okay with the government taking a big chunk and risking your entire legacy? And even if you are, do you expect everyone else to be okay with that? And for what? Pocket change to the government that they spend on what? Bombs? Aid to a far off land? Unemployment benefits? Do you trust them, or care about them, more than your wife?

Are you okay with penalizing the hard work, forethought, and fiscal responsibility you and your wife lived for your entire adult lives so that someone in DC can spend your money on something they think is more important than you and your wife did?
 
Last edited:
Dec 18, 2010
8,114
775
660
51
washington d.c.
I watched most of it. I thought Trump was genuine, I do want leadership that is smaller government/free market because I think it’s the best way to do it so I’m generally already sold on most of his core positions. I usd to be more liberal leaning so I understand the democratic position, I just don’t support their policy anymore, I think it’s not a good solution.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
I don't love her, but shes clearly air-fiving some one out of frame
air-fiving? Is that like when you wave at someone who you think you know and they just stand there looking at you like an idiot?
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,454
1,910
365
So, your answer to my question was....?
My answer was that they do not actually fact check what he says in an intellectually honest way. Here is an example:

"“More people are working now than at any time in our history.”

This is misleading.
While the total number of people working in the United States is higher than ever, it is not because of the president’s policies. It is because more people than ever live in the United States."

A proper fact check would simply be "this is true." If they wish to have an editorial piece that says why the reader should give the true statement no weight, by all means do that. But if you give that editorial in the "fact check" article, you are intellectually dishonest. The example you gave is another good one. They editorialize as to why it was "far from being impossible" to suggest his claim should be ignored. A proper fact check would simply say whether or not the growth was someone that almost everyone said was impossible. That very well may be false, but arguing why it was easily possible when the claim was people said it was not, is simply not fact checking.

Here's three more:

"
Immigration
“The border city of El Paso, Tex., used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the entire country, and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country.”


This is false.
El Paso was never one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, and crime has been declining in cities across the country — not just El Paso — for reasons that have nothing to do with border fencing. In 2008, before border barriers had been completed in El Paso, the city had the second-lowest violent crime rate among more than 20 similarly sized cities. In 2010, after the fencing went up, it held that place.

They claim this is false, then claim crime has been declining everywhere as proof. Whether crime is declining everywhere has no relation to the claim Trump made. Second, they say this is false by comparing the crime rate to 20 similarly sized cities. Why? Why exclude the crime rate of the thousands of smaller and safer cities and towns? Trump never said highest to similarly sized cities - he said in the entire country!

“San Diego used to have the most illegal border crossings in our country. In response, a strong security wall was put in place. This powerful barrier almost completely ended illegal crossings.”
This is misleading.

Border apprehensions decreased by 91 percent in the San Diego sector between the 1994 fiscal year, right after the original border fencing was completed, to the 2018 fiscal year. But, according to the Congressional Research Service, that fence alone “did not have a discernible impact” on the number of immigrants crossing the border into the United States illegally.

They're out of their frggan minds on this one. The rate of apprehensions dropped 91 percent after the wall was built, yet they still say he is misleading because some research service pretends claims they couldn't figure out if the wall actually contributed to a 91% decline in apprehensions? Really?


“As we speak, large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States.”
This is exaggerated.
At the end of January, a new caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America was headed north, and some of the travelers said they intended to try to cross into the United States. But many in the caravan have said they plan to remain in Mexico, thanks in part to policies put in place by the new Mexican government. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has made it easier for Central Americans to get visas and work in Mexico. President Trump’s warnings of an imminent invasion from new caravans is overstated.

This one is just absurd. They literally admit more are marching here, but then claim its exaggerated because some travelers claim they want to stay in Mexico as they march north to the border. Not only is this pure opinion interjected as facts, but it is downright offensive how dumb they think we are.
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
Since you're up front that you're not sure exactly how it all works oh, I'm going to ask a very basic question. Why is your default position that the government deserves a chunk?
Because I'm considering the receiving of assets as a type of income and as something that should be taxed. Let's be clear, I'm not one of these "taxes are theft" wannabe Ayn Rand people. I view taxes as a necessary evil that are used to fund the things that you and I use, or don't use, everyday. I'm not bitching about my tax dollars going to the military or to welfare or to any number of things because those programs are there to serve me and you whenever they are needed.



Unfortunately, at 60 you stroke out. Your wife has the house and that 60k per year investment account, which is as we said worth north of 2 and 1/2 million dollars.

What percent of this are you okay with the government taking from her? Note that if she pays via the principal of her account, she will that is severely damage the long-term payout of your life's savings. But if she doesn't, she will lose the house that you guys bought and paid for decades ago.

Do you seriously trust the government to do right with your money over the needs of your wife? Now imagine you have kids in the mix, like many Americans do. Maybe a small business worth $ 8 million that you and your wife built from the ground up. Are you okay with the government taking a big chunk and risking your entire Legacy? And even if you are, do you expect everyone else to be okay with that?
I'm not sure what the government would be taking money from my wife when I pass away, given that everything is jointly owned.

So we both die. The kids, God love 'em (except for Kevin, that little shit), inherit our brothel business. It's worth $8 million because we have lots of high-class whores in there. From what I can tell, they won't pay a damn thing. And even if they did, the Government is not taking as big of a chunk as you think they are, and my brothel Legacy is secure.



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-the-federal-estate-tax
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
Can you not focus on dumb shit? It's a one second clip.
It's funny. Chill out.

Anyways, if I didn't focus on the dumb shit then I would have to completely ignore her.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,369
847
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
For the last two years they have injected their opinions into "fact checks." That is not how "fact checking" works if the "fact checker" is being intellectually honest about what they are doing.
That's a real problem with what they call "fact checking" today. The NYT fact check posted by 138 above and one a friend linked me to last night from the Associated Press disagree on the Chinese tariff claim, for example - one says it's true, the other says it's misleading. How do you disagree with the facts? They're reading things into those statements and trying to find ways to label them false or misleading.
 
Likes: oagboghi2
Apr 9, 2009
27,182
1,611
815
So let's use you as an example. You are a married couple with no kids, and no plans to have kids. You and your wife both make fifty grand a year. At 100k total, you buy a house at 250k.

You dont live beyond your means. You're responsible. Unlike many families you carry no debt other than your mortgage. And, as you age into the retirement years you even manage to pay that off.

You and your spouse are so responsible that you even managed to save over a million dollars towards your nest egg, and are planning to live on about 5% of that annually, say 50-60k a year through retirement.

As evidenced by your fiscal responsibility, you were actually a better investor than you thought. Your neighborhood has improved, and by the time you're 60 your house is worth 1.25 million.

Not bad right? You're millionaire. Your assets and bank account are worth a bit over two and a half million dollars. That's more money than you ever conceived up making the salaries you made. You don't actually feel rich, of course, because you're living within your means and the vast majority of your wealth is tied up in retirement Investments.
None of the death distribution is taxable on a Roth which the couple qualifies for in your example. And even if she is taxed on the distribution of principle on a traditional IRA the couple still got to deduct the contributions made over the years. Finally if its an employee sponsored 401k then the whole point is that the earnings were tax deferred, so being taxed on the distribution was always understood from day 1. If they somehow didn't utilize or understand these options well, then they are not particularly good investors or fiscally responsible in the first place.

Unfortunately, at 60 you stroke out. Your wife has the house and that 60k per year investment account, which is as we said worth north of 2 and 1/2 million dollars.

What percent of this are you okay with the government taking from her? Note that if she pays via the principal of her account, she will that is severely damage the long-term payout of your life's savings. But if she doesn't, she will lose the house that you guys bought and paid for decades ago.

Do you seriously trust the government to do right with your money over the needs of your wife? Now imagine you have kids in the mix, like many Americans do. Maybe a small business worth $ 8 million that you and your wife built from the ground up. Are you okay with the government taking a big chunk and risking your entire Legacy? And even if you are, do you expect everyone else to be okay with that?
Sorry if I'm missing something from an earlier string of posts with the other guy, but what does a surviving spouse have to do with an estate tax?

26 U.S. Code § 2056: For purposes of the tax imposed by section 2001, the value of the taxable estate shall, except as limited by subsection (b), be determined by deducting from the value of the gross estate an amount equal to the value of any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse, but only to the extent that suchinterest is included in determining the value of the gross estate.

In other words, no kids no estate tax to worry about in the first place. The house passes through tax free and I already explained the retirement account.

And even if they had kids there are so many options to lower estate basis. Easy one is just making gifts annually which are not taxable to the recipient and have an extremely high ceiling before they are taxable to the payor.
 
Feb 25, 2017
281
269
210
That's a real problem with what they call "fact checking" today. The NYT fact check posted by 138 above and one a friend linked me to last night from the Associated Press disagree on the Chinese tariff claim, for example - one says it's true, the other says it's misleading. How do you disagree with the facts? They're reading things into those statements and trying to find ways to label them false or misleading.
They should stop calling it fact check and just say party check.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
So we both die. The kids, God love 'em (except for Kevin, that little shit), inherit our brothel business. It's worth $8 million because we have lots of high-class whores in there. From what I can tell, they won't pay a damn thing. And even if they did, the Government is not taking as big of a chunk as you think they are, and my brothel Legacy is secure.
So question about this theoretical brothel business. How do you value a whore for taxation purposes? Is it by number of loads she can blow an hour? How do you factor in depreciation of assets over time? It sounds like an intriguing business venture though.
 
Likes: cryptoadam

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
So question about this theoretical brothel business. How do you value a whore for taxation purposes? Is it by number of loads she can blow an hour? How do you factor in depreciation of assets over time? It sounds like an intriguing business venture though.
I can't believe I'm trying to Google a real-life answer to my theoretical bullshit, but you KNOW someone's gotta be dealing with this issue.
 
Likes: Cybrwzrd
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
Because I'm considering the receiving of assets as a type of income and as something that should be taxed. Let's be clear, I'm not one of these "taxes are theft" wannabe Ayn Rand people. I view taxes as a necessary evil that are used to fund the things that you and I use, or don't use, everyday. I'm not bitching about my tax dollars going to the military or to welfare or to any number of things because those programs are there to serve me and you whenever they are needed.
I used you as an example and ignored the issue of joint ownership because it seemed like you needed a simplified example based on your acknowledgement of lack of knowledge on the topic. If joint ownership is a cure all to dodge the death tax, then the death tax is even more unfair to small owners. Regarding what would happen to your brothel, that's already be covered in this thread.

It's nice that you're not bitching about tax dollars. Maybe you should start doing so. If the federal government actually spent money well , the infrastructure that you're suggesting we are spending it on wouldn't be a dumpster fire. Very few people are against road improvement, etc., and you don't have to be a radical to support significantly lower taxes. You certainly don't have to be radical to think the death tax is wrong.

I do not understand how you can reconcile clearly stating that you don't understand how it all works but that you're okay with it. If you don't understand it then why do you have such a strong opinion on it?
 
Likes: playoverwork
Aug 30, 2014
6,371
739
385
None of the death distribution is taxable on a Roth which the couple qualifies for in your example.
My example analogy was clearly directed at someone who stated they did not understand the issue and discussed their own situation of having no collectibles, Etc. I have a previous post detailing what might happen with a ranch worth 12 million, but it was clear that's some people don't understand how little that actually is. The simplified husband and wife example is laying out how wealth accumulates regardless through simple fiscal responsibility, and how penalizing such fiscal responsibility is, in my opinion, wrongheaded. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I was building a relatable analogy, but I thought that would be clear given the post I was responding to.

If it's immoral to take it from him and his wife, I would argue it doesn't suddenly become moral because Joe down the street invested even better and built up a company worth 12 million.
 
Last edited:
Apr 9, 2009
27,182
1,611
815
So question about this theoretical brothel business. How do you value a whore for taxation purposes? Is it by number of loads she can blow an hour? How do you factor in depreciation of assets over time? It sounds like an intriguing business venture though.
They get a w2. Just like strippers, bartenders, waiters, e.t.c.

If the company is trying to dodge payroll tax they can pay the whores as independent contractors. Which in most cases is bad practice and can be penalized by the IRS which republicans continue to underfund.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
They get a w2. Just like strippers, bartenders, waiters, e.t.c.

If the company is trying to dodge payroll tax they can pay the whores as independent contractors. Which in most cases is bad practice and can be penalized by the IRS which republicans continue to underfund.
I think technically they are 1099 workers, but I also was making a joke and not really being serious. And anyways whores are objects, therefore you can own them.
 
Apr 9, 2009
27,182
1,611
815
I think technically they are 1099 workers, but I also was making a joke and not really being serious. And anyways whores are objects, therefore you can own them.
They are absolutely not contractors if they work at a brothel. Contractors dont

-work at the same location indefnitel
-report to one set of management indefnitely
-perform the overwhelming majority of services for the business generating the most revenue
-have their behavior and pay strictly regulated by the business, especially in writing via a handbook

These are the attributes of an employee.

You also dont get to use the whores as objects excuse because property which generates income has its own tax implications.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
They are absolutely not contractors if they work at a brothel. Contractors dont

-work at the same location indefnitel
-report to one set of management indefnitely
-perform the overwhelming majority of services for the business generating the most revenue
-have their behavior and pay strictly regulated by the business, especially in writing via a handbook

These are the attributes of an employee.

You also dont get to use the whores as objects excuse because property which generates income has its own tax implications.
Well, I think the ladies working in Nevada at the brothels there are independent contractors. I am a little scared to do too much digging on this subject while at work.

But those ladies are technically escorts, and we clearly are discussing whores. Since they are owned by their pimp, who also happens to be a brothel owner in this case. So I am sure the taxation on objects that generate income would apply. @Cunth Since you are our resident expert on this, how do you handle taxes on your property?
 

catfish

I have a foreskin yet I do not have AIDS
Jun 9, 2004
27,376
131
1,625
Amsterdam
Yeah. Screw those families and their “family businesses” or savings that they try and leave to their children when they die. Can’t allow that to happen. Need to tax it again to prevent those sustained middle class families from developing.
The playing field is supposedly level for everyone (everyone is subject to this LAW) and what they leave behind is income for the next of kin.

Im not saying i like this, im just explaining the mechanism, which is quite easy to understand.

Without something like this, very rich families would become ‘insane fucking rich’ to the point of answering to nobody about as quickly as they could crap out new generations of semi productive adults.
 
Last edited:
Nov 1, 2017
667
980
215
Watched the speech after work last night, gotta say that was an amazing performance he put on. Really inspiring.

Was Pelosi given the wrong speech? As is tradition opposing side is given the speech to base their rebuttal off but she kept checking it constantly like she was thinking 'that wasn't written down..'

Then the Democratic rebuttal seemed to not really address much of what Trump said?

Also the women all in white, drawing attention to themselves for looking like complete spoiled brats 90% of the time.
 
Last edited:
Feb 21, 2018
3,104
2,072
300
Watched the speech after work last night, gotta say that was an amazing performance he put on. Really inspiring.

Was Pelosi given the wrong speech? As is tradition opposing side is given the speech to base their rebuttal off but she kept checking it constantly like she was thinking 'that wasn't written down..'

Then the Democratic rebuttal seemed to not really address much of what Trump said?

Also the women all in white, drawing attention to themselves for looking like complete spoiled brats 90% of the time.
Ya this irked me. And how the refused to clap for anything except for the time he mentioned women in the work force.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Nov 1, 2017
667
980
215
Ya this irked me. And how the refused to clap for anything except for the time he mentioned women in the work force.
Was really on show for the entire world to see how self-absorbed they are. I mean politicians in general are quite narcissistic but most of them have the sense to put on a facade when required.

Was so funny watching them take cues from Pelosi on what to applaud and what not to.

Trump stating “You weren’t supposed to do that…” was absolutely amazing. Said what the entire country would have been thinking.
 
Aug 30, 2018
375
525
210
This was an amazing speech. I can't figure out what was the most amazing part, getting Democrats to applaud and eventually chant USA-USA-USA!, or watching them look around nervously for a sign whether to applaud or not, or Trump flat out saying socialism and America do not mix.

Sinema being told to watch her ass for applauding was one of the highlights of the night for me.

 
Nov 1, 2017
667
980
215
This was an amazing speech. I can't figure out what was the most amazing part, getting Democrats to applaud and eventually chant USA-USA-USA!, or watching them look around nervously for a sign whether to applaud or not, or Trump flat out saying socialism and America do not mix.

Sinema being told to watch her ass for applauding was one of the highlights of the night for me.

Things like that are a really bad look for Democrats, how can they not comprehend there is likely a camera focused on them??