As Donald Trump pivots to the general election battle, he's already walking back his tax plan, the most specific policy proposal he has released during the campaign.
"By the time it gets negotiated, it's going to be a different plan," Trump told George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' "This Week."
In Trumps tax plan, the wealthiest individuals would get a tax break, with the top tax rate dropping from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. But when pressed if he wants taxes on the wealthy to go up or down, he predicted that the top rate would be higher than the plan says.
"On my plan they're going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Trump said. "Look, when I'm negotiating with the Democrats, I'm putting in a plan. I'm putting in my optimum plan. It's going to be negotiated, George. It's not going to stay there. They're not going to say, 'There's your plan, let's approve it.' They're going to say, 'Let's see what we can do.'"
While Trump said he would like to keep everything in his plan, his top priorities would be lowering taxes on businesses and the middle class, not helping the rich.
"I will try and keep everything. What I really want is lower on business, because business, we're the highest-taxed nation in the world. And I want lower on the middle class," he said.
"I am looking at it, and I haven't decided in terms of numbers. But I think people have to get more," Trump said.
Throughout the primaries, Trump had been against increasing the minimum wage, but as the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, he's changing.
"Sure, it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility, George, whether it's a tax plan, where you're going -- where you know you're going to negotiate. But we're going to come up with something. But my real minimum wage is going to be -- I'm going to bring companies back into this country, and they're going to make a lot more than the $15 even," Trump said.
Unclear is whether Trump supports a direct hike in the minimum wage or simply intends to achieve it through greater economic prosperity.
He also said he was ok with the idea of shorting US bond holders giving them a haircut of 20% of the face value of the bond. So much for the idea of 'full faith and credit ' . His plan if true would make us the Argentina of the North.
Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, All is well, Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
Just change the interest rates, like the banks do all the time on credit card and savings accounts. If they squawk, then to paraphrase the Supreme Court:
To engraft upon the federal bond holders system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.
US bonds are not subject to business-like negotiations . The face value and the interest rates they were purchased under is critical to their value for financing the debt . If bond holders don't believe in the full faith and credit of the bonds ,then future bond purchasers will demand a higher rate of interest .This is one case where running the country as a business doesn't work .Trump I'm sure played that card many times in his business dealings telling investors ,'sure I owe you $ 1 million....settle for $800,000 or take me to court .' But in the world of national financing ,a nation like Argentina pulls a stunt like that ,then they find that no one wants to buy their bonds.
Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, All is well, Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
Thanks Willie . I did not hear that version of the song before .
Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, All is well, Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
To engraft upon the federal bond holders system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.
That was a Social Security decision ;here is the relevant quote : To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. (Flemming v. Nestor 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
It clearly had nothing to do with bond holders purchasing US debt.
Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, All is well, Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
It clearly had nothing to do with bond holders purchasing US debt.
Clearly? Don't just beg the question. Why wouldn't the Court's argument apply to bond holders purchasing US debt?
To engraft upon the federal bond holders system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.
Sec 4 of the 14th amendment; The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. Federally guaranteed sovereign debt obligations include Treasury bills (T-bills), Treasury notes and Treasury bonds. The bonds are offered at low rates because they are risk free. If he wants to build risk into their purchases then expect interest on the debt to sky-rocket .
Oh, miserable mortals! Oh wretched earth! Oh, dreadful assembly of all mankind! Eternal sermon of useless sufferings! Deluded philosophers who cry, All is well, Hasten, contemplate these frightful ruins, (Voltaire)
Of course it is going to be negotiated. No one gets everything they want.
EXACTLY! OF COURSE it's going to be negotiated! Taxes come out of Congress. Presidents can suggest things to Congress, but Congress initiates the legislation, debates it and passes it. Presidents can threaten to veto legislation that doesn't contain core provisions they want, and that's often enough for Congress to give Presidents certain key provisions. But then Congress ALSO adds things that Presidents DON'T want, and then Presidents have a choice in compromise to make: do they sign and take the BIG things they wanted, and put up with the additional crap, or do they veto, lose on the Big Thing, fail to advance their agenda, all just to block some things attached to the legislation that THEY think is petty bullshit, but that somebody in Congress whose vote was necessary considers HIS big thing.
How many bills pass the House and Senate unanimously? Sometimes they do, like that bill to strip deported Nazi war criminals of Social Security payments. But nothing important gets passed unanimously. Horse trading is part of the process, and the President always gets a smorgasbord bill that includes what he wants, but that also has chopped liver and kimchee over in the corner.
Trump recognizes that passing laws requires compromise, and the flea-bitten Trump haters go OMIGOD HE'S GONE COMMUNIST!
Thanks Willie . I did not hear that version of the song before .
I'm glad you enjoyed it... In most other versions that I'm aware of, it's usually sung with a more powerful clarity to the voice... But Sinead O'Connor sings it with a delicate softness that provides an interesting contrast.. Here's another classic tune you might like:
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.