Trump

[Hoss]

CF always returns from Canada in May with a beard.  I hope the brown shirts don't find out.

What's that all aboot?

[Red Arrow]

I mean returning from vacation and starting a beard is a very very clear sign you've been radicalized, right?

Yep, you are supposed to start the beard while you are still on vacation.

[Hoss]

LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0

[cannon_fodder]

Originally he said all Muslims. He later clarified that he didn't mean US citizens who were in the armed forces, but it applies to everyone else.

His press people later clarified his clarification saying that it didn't apply to any US citizen? I didn't hear the clarification on the clarification.
- - -

MORE FUN!

Yesterday he took to Twitter to blast Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, for using a "Washington Post tax haven" to prop up his unprofitable company (Amazon).

This is fantastic because Trump supporters say he can run a country because he knows business. But clearly, he has no clue what he is talking about.
1) If Amazon was not profitable - it wouldn't need a tax shelter. As it turns out, Amazon does make money (ironically, Amazon makes in a year about the same amount Trump inherited from his Daddy). But...

2)If the tax shelter worked by simply losing all of the company profits - then you're doing business wrong. Any company can avoid paying taxes by simply NOT MAKING MONEY. That's what you call stupid. Not that it matters because...

3) Amazon and the Washington Post are not related companies. Jeff Bezos owns shares in Amazon, about 19% of the shares. Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post (through a holding company, but it is his). To the non-business initiated (like Trump), that means that any money Amazon makes would be taxed no matter what happens at the Washington Post, because they have NOTHING to do with each other as far as the tax man is concerned (or the board of Amazon, or investors, or...).

Let me explain it to you like you're The Donald: I own shares in Amazon. I also own shares in Ford Motor Company. I also own a law firm.

If Amazon makes money and issues a dividend to me (how I would make money from Amazon), Amazon has to pay taxes on its profits before it pays me (because Amazon is a person too, it has to pay taxes). Same with Ford. Now, if Amazon made $1 TRILLION and my law firm lost $1 TRILLION (good for me!), Amazon would still have to pay taxes in its profits.

Idiot.

[Townsend]

Trump Names Oklahoma Team

http://publicradiotulsa.org/post/trump-names-oklahoma-team

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has named two businessmen as co-chairs of his Oklahoma campaign.

Trump says Bob Mills and Dan Keating will lead his campaign in the state.

Mills has operated Bob Mills Furniture in Oklahoma since 1972, and Keating is president of Summit Consolidated Group and brother of former Governor Frank Keating.

[heironymouspasparagus]

While there has been movement in the field, Trump still leads the GOP.

Cruz is now touching Carson's toes but the Trump lead is significant.

Someone's trolling the GOP.

They have finally dropped the whole politically correct pretense and letting you see the real GOP...  This is what it means to be one of the Hijacked Republican Party of Amerika.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The Real Clear Politics averaging on national polls has this ugly racist Nazi polling at 30% of Republican voters! He's up by 15 points over Cruz and Carson. He's polling at 43%!!!!! of all voters in a theoretical vote vs Hillary.

pancakes is wrong with people? Is this actually how Hitler happened?

Sort of.  Hitler and all the other extremist groups of the time actually had more than just jingoism and dogma.  They offered - and were wrong, of course - an alternative economic path to people that had been suffering from the excesses of the economic structures in place at the time.

Today's Hijacked Republican Party doesn't have the bad economic performance - there are increasingly disfunctional economic structures in place due the the dismantling efforts of the HRP, but they aren't quite destroyed yet.  We are seeing the first stages of psychotic, rabid-dog, bite-themselves, reactions by the less educated (more conservative), more fearful-of-the-future types who think that somehow the last 35 years has lead us toward the pinnacle of human society (starting at RayGun).  And of course, the more the state is like Oklahoma overall, the more wrong it is.

[AquaMan]

Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator likens Trump to the early Reagan candidacy. Talk about a slap in the face. He also says Democrats use race as a divisive tool to control them and have for a hundred years. Can you say revisionist? Delusional?

But don't pay much attention to the polls that are being used. He draws 35% with +/- 6%. That's the margin of error for a poll of just republicans. Cell phones and land lines are creating havoc for pollsters. All that's clear is that a huge amount of the Republican base isn't really republican in the way we think of fiscal conservatives. They are unsophisticated politically, unschooled in business principles, unhappy with the new economic world and... they are batshit crazy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yep, you are supposed to start the beard while you are still on vacation.

Uh-oh....I must have been radicalized over Thanksgiving and didn't even know it!!  I started growing a beard while on vacation!!

[erfalf]

MORE FUN!

Yesterday he took to Twitter to blast Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, for using a "Washington Post tax haven" to prop up his unprofitable company (Amazon).

This is fantastic because Trump supporters say he can run a country because he knows business. But clearly, he has no clue what he is talking about.
1) If Amazon was not profitable - it wouldn't need a tax shelter. As it turns out, Amazon does make money (ironically, Amazon makes in a year about the same amount Trump inherited from his Daddy). But...

2)If the tax shelter worked by simply losing all of the company profits - then you're doing business wrong. Any company can avoid paying taxes by simply NOT MAKING MONEY. That's what you call stupid. Not that it matters because...

3) Amazon and the Washington Post are not related companies. Jeff Bezos owns shares in Amazon, about 19% of the shares. Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post (through a holding company, but it is his). To the non-business initiated (like Trump), that means that any money Amazon makes would be taxed no matter what happens at the Washington Post, because they have NOTHING to do with each other as far as the tax man is concerned (or the board of Amazon, or investors, or...).

Let me explain it to you like you're The Donald: I own shares in Amazon. I also own shares in Ford Motor Company. I also own a law firm.

If Amazon makes money and issues a dividend to me (how I would make money from Amazon), Amazon has to pay taxes on its profits before it pays me (because Amazon is a person too, it has to pay taxes). Same with Ford. Now, if Amazon made $1 TRILLION and my law firm lost $1 TRILLION (good for me!), Amazon would still have to pay taxes in its profits.

Idiot.

I might have read it incorrectly, but I think what he meant (and clarrified on a this tweet)

The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter

was that the losses at the Post are used to reduce the tax burden caused by the Amazon profits. Effectively reducing the tax bill for Amazon.. While this is certainly not illegal and should be employed if possible (the former tax accounting is getting out), it is something that is often used as an us vs the rich thing that is used by all the candidates in an election cycle.

[swake]

I might have read it incorrectly, but I think what he meant (and clarrified on a this tweet)

The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter

was that the losses at the Post are used to reduce the tax burden caused by the Amazon profits. Effectively reducing the tax bill for Amazon.. While this is certainly not illegal and should be employed if possible (the former tax accounting is getting out), it is something that is often used as an us vs the rich thing that is used by all the candidates in an election cycle.

Except Amazon doesn't own The Post. Bezos does. Bezos is not Amazon.

[cannon_fodder]

Except Amazon doesn't own The Post. Bezos does. Bezos is not Amazon.

Exactly. As I explained above...

Amazon makes $300,000,000, on which it pays 35% corporate tax = $105,000,000. No matter how much money the Washington Post loses, Amazon pays this tax. Because Amazon has zero ownership interest in the Post.

It then declares the rest a hypothetical full dividend, with ~20% going to Bezos, $20,000,000. Bezos can personally offset that gain against losses he actually incurs at the Washington Post - but since that is owned by a holding company, he would have to take a write-down (actual loss) in his ownership of that company to realize the set-off. Which won't happen anytime soon (less he admit really early he paid too much for the paper, and he isn't known for bad investments).

Also worth noting, and I did above, that BUYING A COMPANY TO LOSE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU MAKE WOULD BE AN INCREDIBLY STUPID TAX STRATEGY. If you make no money, you pay no taxes. You could skip that entire problem but just not making any money to begin with or giving it all away...

Which is why I thought it was so great. Trump is known for being a "business man" but clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Guess when you inherit a real estate empire from Daddy your "people" do all the real "deal making" for you and you just have to be a brand. Oh yeah, that's all The Donald™ is.

[erfalf]

Exactly. As I explained above...

Amazon makes $300,000,000, on which it pays 35% corporate tax = $105,000,000. No matter how much money the Washington Post loses, Amazon pays this tax. Because Amazon has zero ownership interest in the Post.

It then declares the rest a hypothetical full dividend, with ~20% going to Bezos, $20,000,000. Bezos can personally offset that gain against losses he actually incurs at the Washington Post - but since that is owned by a holding company, he would have to take a write-down (actual loss) in his ownership of that company to realize the set-off. Which won't happen anytime soon (less he admit really early he paid too much for the paper, and he isn't known for bad investments).

Why would he have to write anything down. Bezos holding firm owns 100% of the post (right?) so the posts earning would then be entirely on the holding companies books. Right?

I did mispeak earlier when I said it would reduce Amazons taxes. I still think it reduces Bezos exposure though. That is as long as the Post is a turd.

I imagine Bezos likely either had a personal interest in media or he really was attempting to use it as a sort of dodge. Because who in their right mind would buy a newspaper to make money?

[cannon_fodder]

It doesn't necessarily save Bezos on taxes, even if it loses money. I owned shares in Blockbuster as it was losing money for years. I never said a nickle on my taxes, UNTIL I sold my shares for a loss. Then that loss offset my other income for the year. That's because profits and losses stay within the corporate form until distributed or realized.

Also... What kind of idiot investor would buy a newspaper to make money?

Warren Buffet.

[erfalf]

It doesn't necessarily save Bezos on taxes, even if it loses money. I owned shares in Blockbuster as it was losing money for years. I never said a nickle on my taxes, UNTIL I sold my shares for a loss. Then that loss offset my other income for the year. That's because profits and losses stay within the corporate form until distributed or realized.

Bezos, through his partnership, unloads thousands of shares a year. In one particular transaction alone this year, he unloaded over $500 million. So yes, he could mitigate his tax bill by owning a dud company. I don't know for a fact, but I would imagine early on Bezos owned a huge steak in the company. Today I believe he owns south of 19% of the company (still something I would love to own, but less for him). He has obviously been making sales over time.

Second, Trump may have been more right than wrong when he mentioned no profit Amazon. They haven't exactly been raking in profits lately. Revenue yes, profits no. The last four years have yielded net income of (241M), 274M, (39M), and 631M (most recent listed first). That is a combined profit ratio of 0.23%. Ouch.

Also... What kind of idiot investor would buy a newspaper to make money?

Warren Buffet.

This in itself is not an indicator of a wise investment.

First, Buffett's paper investment was much different than owning a paper like the Post. Large national types have been shown to be losers over time because of the competition. Buffett however bough papers that for the most part were the big dogs in there market and would not compete with the likes of the Post, our Tulsa World for example. Competition is thinner and margins are higher (potentially).

Second, Buffett has had some doozies over the years (albeit more winners) so his stamp is not necessarily an indication that it is a wise investment.