Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 US General Election

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • again-- do your fact checking.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-foundation-c/

    Priebus’ case is built on the notion that the only charitable work the Clinton Foundation does is in grant-making and, by extension, everything else is overhead.

    We’ll use the Clinton Foundation’s most recent IRS tax form, for 2014, as an example. (It starts on Page 28 of this document.) The foundation reported total expenses in 2014 of a little over $91 million but grants of just $5.1 million. That’s close to 6 percent of the foundation’s money being spent on grants.

    Over a five-year period from 2009-12, the foundation raised over $500 million, the conservative website The Federalist reported, but only 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went toward grants.

    But that doesn’t mean everything else is overhead, people who monitor charities and their practices say.

    "Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity," Brian Mittendorf, a professor of accounting at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business, wrote in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment.

    "Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation."

    What kind of activities?

    The Clinton Development Initiative is helping farmers in Malawi grow and sell more crops and has built a warehouse where farmers can store their crops for sale. The foundation is doing something similar for coffee farmers in Haiti.

    In 2013, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership launched the Acceso Centro de Formacion to provide job training for people in Cartagena, Colombia.

    A lot of what the foundation does is have its employees help facilitate partnerships.

    The Clinton Health Access Initiative, for instance, has gotten credit for providing access to lower-cost drugs for millions of people with HIV/AIDS. The foundation program consolidated both the supply of raw materials to make the drugs and the bidding to supply the finished product. The result was lower production costs and lower drug prices. Today, the initiative tracks the going price for a menu of treatments and posts them to help health departments around the world as they negotiate with drug companies.

    Mittendorf and other people who study charities say the most general way to address how much a group spends on charities versus overhead is to look at the audited financial statements that consolidate the financial results of the entities that make up the Clinton Foundation. That include the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Climate Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, Clinton Development Initiative, and Clinton Health Matters Initiative.

    Financial statement rules require a nonprofit to split its expenses between program services, fundraising, and management/general costs (the latter two are collectively what are referred to as "overhead"), Mittendorf told us.

    He said that in 2014, 87.2 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenses were on program services.

    "Of course, this only speaks to how the organization used its funds and not whether that 87.2 percent was allocated to the most effective program efforts, but it is all we have in terms of verifiable data on this question," Mittendorf said.

    The American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch, reached the same conclusion. It has given the Clinton Foundation an A rating and says it spends only 12 percent of the money it raises on "overhead."

    "The Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity," Charity Watch president Daniel Borochoff said Aug. 24, 2016, on CNN. "They are able to get 88 percent of their spending to bona fide program services and their fundraising efficiency is really low. It only costs them $2 to raise $100."

    Sandra Minuitti at the group Charity Navigator used the same general calculation when talking to our colleagues FactCheck.org, though she did not include the Clinton Foundation’s affiliates. By that measure, in 2013, 80.6 percent of spending was on program services.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • Here are the numerous warnings about the housing bubble:

      For Immediate Release
      Office of the Press Secretary
      October 9, 2008
      Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform
      The Washington Times Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

      **White House News

      ***** Setting the Record Straight
      ***** In Focus: Economy
      Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late.* "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade."* (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)
      Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.* In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.* Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.
      2001
      April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."* (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
      2002
      May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.* (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
      2003
      February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.*

      September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.


      September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."* (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)**


      October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." *(Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


      November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."* To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."* (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
      2004
      February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:* "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."* (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)


      February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."* Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."* (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)


      April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."* At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. *I don't think we are in any remote danger here. *This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."* ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)


      June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.* Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:* Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."* (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
      2005
      April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."* (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)


      July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
      2007
      August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. *Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." *(President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)


      August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.* (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)


      December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. *So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. *The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. *But the Senate has not acted. *And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." *(President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)
      2008
      February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."* (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)


      March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."* (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)


      April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *[There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."* (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)


      May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.*

      "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. *Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."* (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)


      "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. *And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. *That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."* (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)


      "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."* (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

      June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."* (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)


      July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


      September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant stehttps://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.htmlps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." *(Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9

      https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi...081009-10.html

      Comment


      • ^ attributing the financial crisis solely to GSEs is something that has been disproven time and again.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...crisis/250121/
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • That up there ^^^^ that ignorance is what causes havoc in the lives of ordinary Americans. I think it is disgusting to say the least. I don't care if it is a Democrat or a Republican making a request to deter a catastrophe, I am fed up with career politicians that think they know everything and they know nothing. Like I said before, small businesses were getting the first hit in 08/07. You do the math.

          Comment


          • well well, now we have a better understanding of why Donald is so reluctant to release those tax returns...

            ====
            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us...ump-taxes.html

            Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

            Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

            The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

            Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

            Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.

            The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

            “He has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the early 1990s, said one of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Mr. Rosenfeld offered this description of what he would advise a client who came to him with a tax return like Mr. Trump’s: “Do you realize you can create $916 million in income without paying a nickel in taxes?”

            Mr. Trump declined to comment on the documents. Instead, the campaign released a statement that neither challenged nor confirmed the $916 million loss.

            “Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement said. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.”

            The statement continued, “Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”

            The tax experts consulted by The Times said nothing in the 1995 documents suggested any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump, even if the extraordinary size of the loss he declared would have probably attracted extra scrutiny from I.R.S. examiners. “The I.R.S., when they see a negative $916 million, that has to pop out,” Mr. Rosenfeld said.

            The documents consisted of three pages from what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns. The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at The Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances. The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return. Each page bore the names and Social Security numbers of Mr. Trump and Marla Maples, his wife at the time. Only the New Jersey form had what appeared to be their signatures.

            The three documents arrived by mail at The Times with a postmark indicating they had been sent from New York City. The return address claimed the envelope had been sent from Trump Tower.

            On Wednesday, The Times presented the tax documents to Jack Mitnick, a lawyer and certified public accountant who handled Mr. Trump’s tax matters for more than 30 years, until 1996. Mr. Mitnick was listed as the preparer on the New Jersey tax form.

            Mr. Mitnick, 80, now semiretired and living in Florida, said that while he no longer had access to Mr. Trump’s original returns, the documents appeared to be authentic copies of portions of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns. Mr. Mitnick said the signature on the tax preparer line of the New Jersey tax form was his, and he readily explained an obvious anomaly in the way especially large numbers appeared on the New York tax document.

            A flaw in the tax software program he used at the time prevented him from being able to print a nine-figure loss on Mr. Trump’s New York return, he said. So, for example, the loss of “-915,729,293” on Line 18 of the return printed out as “5,729,293.” As a result, Mr. Mitnick recalled, he had to use his typewriter to manually add the “-91,” thus explaining why the first two digits appeared to be in a different font and were slightly misaligned from the following seven digits.

            “This is legit,” he said, stabbing a finger into the document.

            Because the documents sent to The Times did not include any pages from Mr. Trump’s 1995 federal tax return, it is impossible to determine how much he may have donated to charity that year. The state documents do show, though, that Mr. Trump declined the opportunity to contribute to the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Fund, the New Jersey Wildlife Conservation Fund or the Children’s Trust Fund. He also declined to contribute $1 toward public financing of New Jersey’s elections for governor.

            The tax documents also do not shed any light on Mr. Trump’s claimed net worth of about $2 billion at that time. This is because the complex calculations of business deductions that produced a tax loss of $916 million are a separate matter from how Mr. Trump valued his assets, the tax experts said.

            Nor does the $916 million loss suggest that Mr. Trump was insolvent or effectively bankrupt in 1995. The cash flow generated by his various businesses that year was more than enough to service his various debts.

            But fragmentary as they are, the documents nonetheless provide new insight into Mr. Trump’s finances, a subject of intense scrutiny given Mr. Trump’s emphasis on his business record during the presidential campaign.

            The documents show, for example, that while Mr. Trump reported $7.4 million in interest income in 1995, he made only $6,108 in wages, salaries and tips. They also suggest Mr. Trump took full advantage of generous tax loopholes specifically available to commercial real estate developers to claim a $15.8 million loss in 1995 on his real estate holdings and partnerships.

            But the most important revelation from the 1995 tax documents is just how much Mr. Trump may have benefited from a tax provision that is particularly prized by America’s dynastic families, which, like the Trumps, hold their wealth inside byzantine networks of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations.

            The provision, known as net operating loss, or N.O.L., allows a dizzying array of deductions, business expenses, real estate depreciation, losses from the sale of business assets and even operating losses to flow from the balance sheets of those partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations onto the personal tax returns of men like Mr. Trump. In turn, those losses can be used to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income from, say, book royalties or branding deals.

            Mr. Trump bought the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan in 1988. Credit Marty Lederhandler/Associated Press
            Better still, if the losses are big enough, they can cancel out taxable income earned in other years. Under I.R.S. rules in 1995, net operating losses could be used to wipe out taxable income earned in the three years before and the 15 years after the loss. (The effect of net operating losses on state income taxes varies, depending on each state’s tax regime.)

            The tax experts consulted by The Times said the $916 million net operating loss declared by Mr. Trump in 1995 almost certainly included large net operating losses carried forward from the early 1990s, when most of Mr. Trump’s key holdings were hemorrhaging money. Indeed, by 1990, his entire business empire was on the verge of collapse. In a few short years, he had amassed $3.4 billion in debt — personally guaranteeing $832 million of it — to assemble a portfolio that included three casinos and a hotel in Atlantic City, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, an airline and a huge yacht.

            Reports that year by New Jersey casino regulators gave glimpses of the balance sheet carnage. The Trump Taj Mahal casino reported a $25.5 million net loss during its first six months of 1990; the Trump’s Castle casino lost $43.5 million for the year. His airline, Trump Shuttle, lost $34.5 million during just the first six months of that year.

            “Simply put, the organization is in dire financial straits,” the casino regulators concluded.

            Reports published by New Jersey regulators in 1993, top, and 1995, above, highlighted the effects of Mr. Trump’s net operating losses.
            Reports by New Jersey’s casino regulators strongly suggested that Mr. Trump had claimed large net operating losses on his taxes in the early 1990s. Their reports, for example, revealed that Mr. Trump had carried forward net operating losses in both 1991 and 1993. What’s more, the reports said the losses he claimed were large enough to virtually cancel out any taxes he might owe on the millions of dollars of debt that was being forgiven by his creditors. (The I.R.S. considers forgiven debt to be taxable income.)

            But crucially, the casino regulators redacted the precise size of the net operating losses in the public versions of their reports. Two former New Jersey officials, who were privy to the unredacted documents, could not recall the precise size of the numbers, but said they were substantial.

            Politico, which previously reported that Mr. Trump most likely paid no income taxes in 1991 and 1993 based on the casino commission’s description of his net operating losses, asked Mr. Trump to comment. “Welcome to the real estate business,” he replied in an email.

            Now, thanks to Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax records, the degree to which he spun all those years of red ink into tax write-off gold may finally be apparent.

            Mr. Mitnick, the lawyer and accountant, was the person Mr. Trump leaned on most to do the spinning. Mr. Mitnick worked for a small Long Island accounting firm that specialized in handling tax issues for wealthy New York real estate families. He had long handled tax matters for Mr. Trump’s father, Fred C. Trump, and he said he began doing Donald Trump’s taxes after Mr. Trump turned 18.

            In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Mitnick said he could not divulge details of Mr. Trump’s finances without Mr. Trump’s consent. But he did talk about Mr. Trump’s approaches to taxes, and he contrasted Fred Trump’s attention to detail with what he described as Mr. Trump’s brash and undisciplined style. He recalled, for example, that when Donald and Ivana Trump came in each year to sign their tax forms, it was almost always Ivana who asked more questions.

            The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, one of the failed casino properties in Atlantic City that had been owned by Mr. Trump. Credit Douglas Graham/Congressional Quarterly, via Getty Images
            But if Mr. Trump lacked a sophisticated understanding of the tax code, and if he rarely showed any interest in the details behind various tax strategies, Mr. Mitnick said he clearly grasped the critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth. “He knew we could use the tax code to protect him,” Mr. Mitnick said.

            According to Mr. Mitnick, Mr. Trump’s use of net operating losses was no different from that of his other wealthy clients. “This may have had a couple extra digits compared to someone else’s operation, but they all benefited in the same way,” he said, pointing to the $916 million loss on Mr. Trump’s tax returns.

            In “The Art of the Deal,” his 1987 best-selling book, Mr. Trump referred to Mr. Mitnick as “my accountant” — although he misspelled his name. Mr. Trump described consulting with Mr. Mitnick on the tax implications of deals he was contemplating and seeking his advice on how new federal tax regulations might affect real estate write-offs.

            Mr. Mitnick, though, said there were times when even he, for all his years helping wealthy New Yorkers navigate the tax code, found it difficult to face the incongruity of his work for Mr. Trump. He felt keenly aware that Mr. Trump was living a life of unimaginable luxury thanks in part to Mr. Mitnick’s ability to relieve him of the burden of paying taxes like everyone else.

            “Here the guy was building incredible net worth and not paying tax on it,” he said.
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Julie,

              That up there ^^^^ that ignorance is what causes havoc in the lives of ordinary Americans. I think it is disgusting to say the least. I don't care if it is a Democrat or a Republican making a request to deter a catastrophe, I am fed up with career politicians that think they know everything and they know nothing. Like I said before, small businesses were getting the first hit in 08/07. You do the math.
              i have given you a link that argues why the fixation on GSEs is incorrect (and for that matter, the article itself has some -counterpoints- as well).

              feel free to debate that, but just stating "neener neener elitist crap!" isn't an argument that's worthy of you or WAB.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                ^ attributing the financial crisis solely to GSEs is something that has been disproven time and again.

                http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...crisis/250121/
                Not solely, but bill after bill was shot down by party-line vote by Democrats and if this would have been properly addressed, the catastrophe would not have been as intense. It would have least been a start.

                Comment


                • Julie,

                  Not solely, but bill after bill was shot down by party-line vote by Democrats and if this would have been properly addressed, the catastrophe would not have been as intense. It would have least been a start.
                  actually, it was only taken up for action twice, in 2003, and then in 2005-2006. that was to regulate accounting issues within Fannie and Freddie, and did NOT address lending issues. and it died in a Republican controlled Congress, both times.

                  note that 85% of the sub-prime mortgages were with private label institutions and not with freddie/fannie. unraveling freddie/fannie would have likely pushed even more of the sub-prime mortgages onto the private market, and considering that private label mortgages had 5 times the delinquency rate things would likely have been even worse than it was.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • far more serious than the GSEs were the various "pro-market" initiatives that happened in the mid-2000s.

                    - 2004, the SEC changed capital requirements that replaced the former 12:1 leverage to unlimited leveraging for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns.
                    - 2004, Office of the Comptroller of Currency blocked state laws from regulating anti-predatory lending/mortgage credit

                    even this can't explain everything, the collapse (both housing and financial) was global in nature.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      Julie,



                      actually, it was only taken up for action twice, in 2003, and then in 2005-2006. that was to regulate accounting issues within Fannie and Freddie, and did NOT address lending issues. and it died in a Republican controlled Congress, both times.

                      note that 85% of the sub-prime mortgages were with private label institutions and not with freddie/fannie. unraveling freddie/fannie would have likely pushed even more of the sub-prime mortgages onto the private market, and considering that private label mortgages had 5 times the delinquency rate things would likely have been even worse than it was.
                      Curse you, Fact-Man!
                      Foiled again!
                      Trust me?
                      I'm an economist!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ZRaaver
                        Actually he was referring to perjury, not lying. I refer to Comey's comments to Trey Gowdy. The questions Rep Gowdy asks Comey are questions she was asked under oath by Congress.

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ]
                        11:24 a.m. Comey testifies that three documents on Clinton's server were marked with a "(C)" -- a "confidential" classification marking.

                        The FBI director said he was unsure whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was "sophisticated" enough to know that the marking meant "confidential."

                        Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton lie?
                        Play VIDEO
                        Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton lie?
                        "I think it's possible she didn't understand what a 'C' meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that," he told the committee.

                        Destrying the lives and reputations of multiple women in order to shield her husband's career and her own political ambitions might be standing by her man, but it is not a champion of women's issues.
                        How many of those multiple womens allegations were found to be true? How many crimes as he found guilty of? How much time did he spend in prison?
                        Only Jennifer Flowers allegation panned out. A consensual one time thing. And she stated that she made a cool 1/2 million dollars off the publicity and Penthouse photo shoot from her 15 min of fame.


                        Champion of womens issues?

                        Introduced 8 bills as a Senator to protect womens reproductive rights. Introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act 3 times. Co-sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
                        Yep she did nothing for women.

                        Did you jsut seriously equate low brow behavior with her and Bill's criminal conduct?
                        With all this "Criminal Conduct" going on you would have thought someone would have gone to jail, or at least be prosecuted. yet the only thing that they have ever been convicted of was Bill lying about getting a BJ.

                        Ya, I don't drink the koolaid you are serving up.
                        I watch more than Fox News and read more than Alt right websites. Expand your horizons

                        Vs a mere coincidental meeting between your husband and the US Attorny General just hours before the FBI delivers a tell all but fails to pull the trigger on prosecution...
                        Maybe because of this

                        "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

                        "Although there is evidence of potential violation of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."
                        Last edited by Gun Grape; 02 Oct 16,, 17:34.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          She flew hat in hand to Putin with a reset button long after the burning tanks had been cleared from the battlefield in Georgia. She also took millions from him via a Canadian front company.
                          I certainly accept that some of the senior players in the Obama administrations have been inept, to say the least, in foreign affairs. Many of us could and did warn that the reset would be meaningless at best and a disaster at worst; the fact they even managed to spell 'reset' wrong in Eastern Slavonic was hilarious to the point of imbecility. However contrast then with today and Samantha Power's speech in the UNSC last week... I do not condone past mistakes - and Bush certainly made some in regard to the Putin regime - but I do welcome those who learn from their mistakes.

                          Comment


                          • At 3:25 the video says everything...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                              She is taking in millions of dollars from domestic and foreign money as she is running for president. If you think people in power just write multi-million dollar checks and don't expect something in return I've got a bridge for sale you might be interested in.
                              You really must learn to differentiate between the Clinton Foundation's perfectly legal international fundraising, and the Clinton presidential campaign. Otherwise, it appears that you are uninformed, willfully ignorant, intentionally dishonest or clueless.
                              Trust me?
                              I'm an economist!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                You really must learn to differentiate between the Clinton Foundation's perfectly legal international fundraising, and the Clinton presidential campaign. Otherwise, it appears that you are uninformed, willfully ignorant, intentionally dishonest or clueless.
                                Attack the issue, not the person please.
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X