cowman52 said:I saw the replay of the question from Hannity. A set up from the word go. Hannity and Trump have pushed this disenfranchisement crap about to the end of the line. According to their thinking, the electoral college should be banned tomorrow if not quicker because it doesn't make the popular vote the be all end all of the process. Cruz is working, politicing, gathering delegates where he can. Just because he doesn't pull some grand gesture and decline said delegates, he's a sorry sob. Hannity today claimed his refusal to endorse Cruz was the reason for part of the hoopla, horse stuff. I'm just about had it to here with Hannity and his " I'm a registered conservative, my penny plan, my martial arts training. He lost Jamie DuPree over constant arguing. You can listen without hearing, me, my, I until your head explodes.
As far as lyin Ted, you can't say he hasn't represented Texas as most of us wanted. You send an e-mail and be you donor or peon, you get an answer, usually in 2 days or less, and it ain't some form letter. The man had the guts 98 senators didn't care to find in regards to obama care. That makes him an ok guy in my book, likable or not.
Transcript via CSPAN, with the part about raising income taxes highlighted in bold. Stick around until the end where Trump compared America in 1991 to the Soviet Union:
Well, first of all, I think I could say to Mr. Seidman, who I believe has done a really fantastic job while he was in government, that had the 1986 catastrophe of the tax reform act not been passed, I'm not sure that you'd know Mr. Seidman in the capacity of RTC; you'd know him in some perhaps more positive capacity, but not in the Resolution Trust. And I think in bringing that point up to Mr. Seidman before he tended to agree with me, I think. (Turns to Mr. Seidman.) Good. So this tax act was just an absolute catastrophe for the country, for the real estate industry, and I really hope that something can be done — as Congressman Thomas recently said, that something can be done to change at least parts of it, because it has taken all incentive away from investing in real estate, and real estate really means so many jobs.
I mean, you have a city called New York City, you have a City of Boston, you have other cities and so many other cities, but I can tell you from very personal knowledge, New York City has virtually no construction right now. And we're not only talking about office buildings, of which there are many; we're talking about housing, moderate-income housing, low-income housing, even high-income housing, where you create jobs, you create so many other things. They buy carpet, they buy furniture, they buy refrigerators, they buy other things that fuel the economy. And incentive has to be put back in to the construction of things that are needed, such as housing of all kinds.
I heard this morning that we've had the lowest number of houses built in terms of the housing since 1946 or 1947. And that's not much of a tribute to this group of folks that are representing the country, unfortunately. I feel — you know, I feel very badly about it, everybody feels very badly about it. The fact is that the one word that nobody up on the panel has mentioned is the word depression, and I truly feel that this country right now is in a depression. It's not a recession. People are kidding themselves if they think it's a recession. You look at what's happening in the automobile business and the — in the retailing business, and the retailing business in any part of the country virtually is a total disaster. But in the real estate business we're in an absolute depression, and one of the reasons we're there is what happened in 1986 — in addition to what Mr. Seidman said — is what happened in 1986 with the changes.
I really came on the basis that I wanted to — I'll answer questions on it — but I wanted to discuss the Tax Act of 1986. Active-passive — you're absolutely right — a hundred percent right, and something has to be done. It has to be brought back, it has to be reformed, it has to be taken care of. I think for certain types of building, such as housing, I think depreciation schedules should be very severely limited — cut, so that people have incentive to build housing as opposed to commercial, which really — again, the commercial is probably taken care of for a long while. The reason it's taken care of for a long while, however, unfortunately, is the fact that the economy is so bad that there's no reason for the commercial. And I think that gets taken care of and gobbled up very quickly had the — if the economy improved.
One of the big things that we don't have today that we used to have and that was a very good thing for real estate, and that's the whole word of syndication and investment. And if you're a dentist, and you're making 200 or $300,000 a year, and — you can't invest now in real estate. The reason the stock market is artificially high, in my opinion, is there's no other form of investment. I mean, you can't put it into real estate, and you can't put it into bonds. So people are putting it into a stock market — all the companies in the stock market are doing lousy, but their stock is high. And I think what we have is — when the stock market goes down by, let's say, a thousand points in two days, which perhaps it might, then we're in a full-scale depression, then everybody admits it. Then the politicians admit it, the President's going to admit it, everybody's going to admit it. And right now, the only thing that sort of keeps the word depression off their lips is the fact that we really have a 3000 stock market and people are surprised to see it, because the companies certainly aren't doing very well within the market itself.
But the syndication of real estate was a very positive thing. And you can't syndicate, you can't have people putting up equity. That would take a lot of the strain off the banks if people could put up equity in the form of equity money for syndication, where you used to be able to go out and syndicate a piece of real estate, today you can't. A lot of the strain that we're talking about — liquidity crisis — a lot of the strain comes off the banks, and I think it could really open up a whole new market.
And the other thing is, frankly, by having cut the high income tax rates to 25 percent, as an example, people don't have the incentive any more to invest. They're saying, "Why should I take a chance on investing in low or moderate-income housing? I might as well just pay the tax."
But the fact is, that 25 percent for high-income people — for high-income people — it should be raised substantially with the understanding that if you invest, you can get it down and down substantially below that number. The incentive was taken away when the tax rates came down for high-income people. And I say leave the middle, leave the low lower. But people with money have to have the incentive. The dentist, the doctors — they have to have the incentive to invest. And there's no incentive.
So New York City desperately needs housing? There's no housing being built. Every city needs housing now. There's no housing being built. And I hope in Ways and Means they're going to be able to do something with respect to housing, because if it's not done, you're just not going to have any construction jobs in this country. And New York City has the lowest number of construction workers I think since the Depression.
I was with a very, very capable firm the other day, the biggest construction firm in New York City — HRH. And — it's called HRH Construction. And we were discussing what they had planned. They said they had not one building planned in New York City for the next two to three years.
Now, you think of that. Not one building planned. So you say that means not one electrical worker — I mean they're just finishing up some buildings, and when those buildings are finished, there's going to be nobody employed in the biggest industry in the country. Because construction is the biggest industry in the country. And there's going to be virtually nobody employed.
So I just come — I was asked to come by the Chairman, and I make this plea that, if something isn't done to put the incentive back — I mean, we're no different right now than the Soviet Union. They have no incentive, and we have no incentive. And if something isn't done to quickly put the incentive back, this country is going to be in very deep problems. It already is, but it's going to get far worse
Traveler said:Yeah, well, hopefully he's evolved since 1991. I personally have. I'm much more conservative and a different kind of a**hole then I was back then. :lol: Sort of like Trump maybe.
It looks like there's a 90% chance it's going to be Trump and Clinton. If anything happens to Hillary, as far as criminal charges, I'll be pretty surprised at this point.
So realistically, get ready to choose between one of the "New Yorkers". It is what it is. I'll certainly choose Donald over the hag.
Traveler said:Yeah, well, hopefully he's evolved since 1991. I personally have. I'm much more conservative and a different kind of a**hole then I was back then. :lol: Sort of like Trump maybe.
It looks like there's a 90% chance it's going to be Trump and Clinton. If anything happens to Hillary, as far as criminal charges, I'll be pretty surprised at this point.
So realistically, get ready to choose between one of the "New Yorkers". It is what it is. I'll certainly choose Donald over the hag.
I'm not doing hand stands for Trump, or pointing fingers about who posted a video :???: . I'm just stating what it looks like the reality of the situation is going to be. If it's down to Trump and Hillary, and you want to keep trashing Trump, well....enjoy the consequences.iwannabeacowboy said:Traveler said:Yeah, well, hopefully he's evolved since 1991. I personally have. I'm much more conservative and a different kind of a**hole then I was back then. :lol: Sort of like Trump maybe.
It looks like there's a 90% chance it's going to be Trump and Clinton. If anything happens to Hillary, as far as criminal charges, I'll be pretty surprised at this point.
So realistically, get ready to choose between one of the "New Yorkers". It is what it is. I'll certainly choose Donald over the hag.
I think you missed something, I didn't dig that up. His advisor posted the video. So if he's so conservative now, why link to that?
Ive learned a thing or two. I wasnt gray haired and still a liberal. I didnt donate to hillary during her last presidential campaign and i didnt donate to Obama's bad word mitch the last election either.
The guy is a two second sound bite. He has no substance. If you use reason and examine the evidence, he's a progressive.
Interesting the light being shown on "conservatives". So many, including here, don't know what the Constitution is about. They believe that America's success is determined by voting in the right person. The right person will know what deals to make.... It's not about a freaking deal! It's about removing government red tape and excessive tax and excessive government.... following the Constitution and letting the small businesses of America open up and compete.
That's not Trump, but you can make him a diety and put your faith in him instead of the Constitution and God and see what you get.... Trump is a moron compared to the founders of this country who gave blood sweat and tears to put into practice the concepts of what made us a success- limited central government.
But hey, if he can get the necessary delegates, we'll get to see what a joke he is and then all the partyconfused dopes like all good little government alter faithfulls can start picking out who their next Messiah that will "save" them is going to be.
Would be entertaining watching the last shredds of the Constitution being burned by a progressive clown or a criminal.... But real conservatives that understand what the Constitution is at least won't be going down without a fight, so we'll still see if these idiots are our only two choices.
Trump's newly hired senior aide, Paul Manafort, made the case to Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities: one in private and one onstage.
"When he's out on the stage, when he's talking about the kinds of things he's talking about on the stump, he's projecting an image that's for that purpose," Manafort said in a private briefing.
"You'll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You'll see a real different guy," he said.
The Associated Press obtained a recording of the closed-door exchange.
"He gets it," Manafort said of Trump's need to moderate his personality. "The part that he's been playing is evolving into the part that now you've been expecting, but he wasn't ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase. The negatives will come down. The image is going to change."
The message was welcomed by some party officials but criticized by others who suggested it raised doubts about his authenticity.
."At some point, I'm going to be so presidential that you people will be so bored,"
I don't think the odds of the nominee being someone other than Trump are realistically more than 5%, 10 at the most. If the nomination goes to someone other than the winner of the popular vote something similar to a civil war is going to erupt, as it should.iwannabeacowboy said:Trump's newly hired senior aide, Paul Manafort, made the case to Republican National Committee members that Trump has two personalities: one in private and one onstage.
"When he's out on the stage, when he's talking about the kinds of things he's talking about on the stump, he's projecting an image that's for that purpose," Manafort said in a private briefing.
"You'll start to see more depth of the person, the real person. You'll see a real different guy," he said.
The Associated Press obtained a recording of the closed-door exchange.
"He gets it," Manafort said of Trump's need to moderate his personality. "The part that he's been playing is evolving into the part that now you've been expecting, but he wasn't ready for, because he had first to complete the first phase. The negatives will come down. The image is going to change."
The message was welcomed by some party officials but criticized by others who suggested it raised doubts about his authenticity.
What you guys apparently don't get, is Trump = Hillary. No different. Why do you think he's supported her forever?
And no, Trump hasn't won. It takes a winning number of delegates to win the nomination. No one has won.
It's why there is still a primary going on. So are you saying it's OK for Trump to make up crap about others but not okay for others to actually point out Trump's positions?
If pointing out what he's said and done is trashing him, then I'm afraid he's done it to himself. Unlike the bs he tried with his buddy that runs the National Enquirer. And you think that's OK? Planting a false sex scandal? Trying to brand someone a liar when Donald sold millions of books on the art of lying? It's called projection. Most progressive's are professionals at it. Who's the proven adulterer, Donald. Who wrote the book on lying- Donald. But that's OK to ignore and eat up his false attacks on other candidates, but God forbid someone repeat the truth about deceiving Donny- why?
."At some point, I'm going to be so presidential that you people will be so bored,"
:roll:
Show us where Trump's history of gun control is anything like where Hillary stands. In order to say Trump and Hillary are the same, you have to ignore their vastly different stands on issues as well. Why was Cruz's email on the Ashley Madison database hack and dump?iwannabeacowboy said:I don't believe that Hillary has that evidence. I don't believe it occurred. If she did, she would of leaked it to Trump.
Trump's negative ratings are yuge! Way more than Cruz. Look at the polls. Cruz is more electable than Trump in national election. She'd much rather face Trump. All his diarrhea of the mouth will be on 24 hr loops on all major channels.
That's why he hasn't been elected by a majority. A majority is not anything below 50% of all possible votes. A majority of Republicans don't want Trump. He might get the necessary delegates, I don't know. But he's not there. His negatives are even bigger for independent votes and liberals.
A nomination of Trump is a win for Hillary, and even if by some miracle he won. It's the same candidate for the rest of us.
Look at Trump's history on gun control. He's all for it. Of course, I'm sure he's always been for armed security guards.
Traveler said:Show us where Trump's history of gun control is anything like where Hillary stands. In order to say Trump and Hillary are the same, you have to ignore their vastly different stands on issues as well. Why was Cruz's email on the Ashley Madison database hack and dump?iwannabeacowboy said:I don't believe that Hillary has that evidence. I don't believe it occurred. If she did, she would of leaked it to Trump.
Trump's negative ratings are yuge! Way more than Cruz. Look at the polls. Cruz is more electable than Trump in national election. She'd much rather face Trump. All his diarrhea of the mouth will be on 24 hr loops on all major channels.
That's why he hasn't been elected by a majority. A majority is not anything below 50% of all possible votes. A majority of Republicans don't want Trump. He might get the necessary delegates, I don't know. But he's not there. His negatives are even bigger for independent votes and liberals.
A nomination of Trump is a win for Hillary, and even if by some miracle he won. It's the same candidate for the rest of us.
Look at Trump's history on gun control. He's all for it. Of course, I'm sure he's always been for armed security guards.
