Let me have my fun - you've had months of gloating Michale ;)

Touche' :D Fair enough..

Sorry, 20 things going at once here...

Your and Liz's position vis a vis the Syria strike is another perfect example...

When Trump does good, he should get the credit..

Let me have my fun - you've had months of gloating Michale ;)

The perception is that Trump created the conditions that allowed those jobs to come into being or be saved...

In other words, it's hard to visualize a scenario where NOT-45 would have been able to create the same environment, simply by virtue of the fact that she was the candidate of same ol, same ol...

To form a realistic factual conclusion, we must wait until things shake out and really have a handle on what is what, as you indicate..

In the here and now, perception rules...

And the perception is that the president deserves the blame AND the credit.....

are you willing to hold yourself to that same standard?

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/07/ryancare-immediately-attacked-by-republicans/#comment-96190

Yes, realistically, you are correct..

But we're talking perception here..

And the perception is that Trump is responsible. Like with gas prices...

My only point is that the perception needs to be applied fairly... Otherwise, it's nothing more than Party bias at work...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hannity-dobbs-trump-close-to-perfect_us_5902c7dae4b0bb2d086c6f3c?section=us_media

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-maddow-trump-taxes_us_59023a9ce4b0026db1df9157?section=us_media

agree. i did not give him credit for the earlier gains, and i do not blame him for the current losses. we won't know for at least nine more months what trump's real effect on the economy has been.

JL

I guess I am back... :^/

heh

What a loser.

If Trump doesn't get the credit when the reports are good...

He doesn't get the blame when the reports are bad...

You can't have it both ways....

What a loser.

Q1 GDP numbers are a disaster for 45.

0.7% - and that didn't include the revised (lower) retail numbers from Wednesday - when those are included in the next estimate, I expect the number will drop to 0.5% (although other factors might move the number up or down when some future numbers come out).

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm?WT.qs_osrc=fxb-115954010

I think this will let him convert his income from personal to corporate and win "bigly", even with the elimination of the AMT.

I'm no tax expert however.

"if you read liz's response to [04] on the coulter post, it doesn't bear out your memory"

I'm on double secret probation with Liz.
Don't hold it against her.
But my memory is fine.

"i'll continue to respond here"

As expected.
And I think hiding your defense of our "ally's" covert aid to al Qaida in an old thread is wise.
Israel couldn't defend it well either, so they abandoned the policy when it was exposed.

"it's not particularly relevant to any recent column, which makes me curious as to why you seem so preoccupied with israeli politics."

Letting your spin stand unchallenged would be an affront to reason.
And for some reason, I've been commenting about Syria, and the powers that be decided to hold a press conference about Syria in Israel. I've lodged a complaint on your behalf.
Of course, nobody else here posts links and comments about news of the day unrelated to the topic of the column, so I understand your confusion.
(do I need to point out the eye rolls for you?)

"yes, it's a choice, but it would be political suicide for mattis to refuse to meet."

The meeting may be "demanded by propriety" as you put it.
But you're conflating that with the optional joint press conference AFTER the meeting due to a lack of a valid defense for Mattis legitimizing a "crazy" "nutjob" like Avigdor Lieberman.

I wrote-
"I think it's an inane argument to suggest that a parliamentary system is somehow relevant to Israel aiding al Qaida."

you responded-
"you're conflating two different arguments"

Not at all. See comment 37 from A very busy week.
Perhaps you meant the response for a different quote, but you wrote it. Don't blame me.

"the parliamentary system is relevant to lieberman being appointed defense minister. he's got a large constituency in the ruling coalition, so a high level appointment is part of the cost of his faction's support."

Yes, I know Israeli voters have been making horrible choices too. Why were you mentioning it in a response about Israel aiding al Qaida?
Whatever. You messed up. No big deal.
But Bibi needing to form a coalition with a faction led by a "crazy" "nutjob" (as you put it) in order to remain in power is a big deal.
It exposes the deplorable state of affairs in Israel, and how craven Bibi is all at the same time.

"it's not as if they specifically decided to help al-Qaeda"

Sure, Israel accidentally decided to covertly aid the fighters that just coincidentally were in an adjacent area controlled by al Qaida, while they simultaneously (and accidentally no doubt) decided not to aid fighters in adjacent areas controlled by Syria or Hezbollah.

Of course, Israel abandoning the policy of covertly aiding al Qaida as soon as it was exposed, and the selective nature of the aid, and the fact that they tried to hide it... all makes your desperate spin laughable.

"are you claiming that israel is not a good faith ally of the united states?"

Israeli intelligence is horrible, so no doubt they had no idea they were helping to fund ISIS by buying their oil.
(these eye rolls are getting tiresome)

"they do hate assad, hezbollah and iran. however, the interventionist perspective is currently in the minority"

But Israel trying to get America to fight an interventionist regime change war in Syria for them is not the "minority perspective"... and that is hardly new (cough, Iraq, Iran) nor something an American should be defending.
You should be condemning it instead of trying to spin Israeli burden shifting efforts while pretending it doesn't represent their wishes.
Your argument is dishonest.

"how is it hypocritical, they're two different countries, and both decisions were made with domestic politics in mind. in US politics, Mattis couldn't be seen rejecting a meeting with his israeli counterpart. in israeli politics, netanyahu was trying to marginalize his political opposition by denying them access to foreign leaders."

You are arguing that Bibi rejecting a meeting is acceptable while Mattis rejecting a meeting would be unacceptable... that's hypocrisy plain and simple.
Of course, once again you are falsely conflating the voluntary press conference by Mattis AFTER the meeting with the meeting, and blowing a hole in your own argument.

And Bibi treating human rights groups as his "political opposition" and trying to deny foreign leaders access to them is the horribly disgusting, undemocratic, scum of the earth, offensive reason the BBC article was even written.
You are once again defending the indefensible.

"your opinion is not informed by israeli politics. i personally think it was a nasty move, but its intended objective was rational based on the local politics."

How could a guy like me who is "preoccupied with Israeli politics" (as you put it) know anything about Israeli politics and parliamentary systems?
I must be ignorant for pointing out what a horrible guy Bibi is for needing to form a coalition with a "crazy" "nutjob" in order to cling to power.

And of course you think it's rational to partner with a crazy nutjob who supports policies that are against US interests. That's what we should all expect of our "strongest ally in the region".
(one last eye roll)

A

The other thing I am surprised hasn't garnered any attention is the "pass-through" tax. From some of the reporting on his real estate deals we know he utilizes Pass through corporations. Currently said income is subjected to the normal tax scales. In Trumps case before any deductions or anything else it is subject to the 39.6 percent tax bracket (using his 2005 tax numbers). This would result in a 62.12 percent tax reduction for income from those entities.

If the GOP pushes through both a repeal of the AMT and the "Pass-through" rate reduction without any meaningful deduction/loophole reform it suddenly becomes entirely possible that Trump could pay a lot less than the 7 mil he would under a normal sans AMT rate. I would even go as far as to say he could pay nothing....

Now that is is truly stunning and news worthy.

"Trump released not so much a tax plan as a "tax memo." It was one single page of bullet points. It contained fewer than 200 words and only seven numbers. That's not a tax plan, that's a glorified tweet."

Love it.

A very busy week for Trump indeed.

I hope he can get in some down time.

A