[Phil]

 helene_t, on 2016-October-04, 08:09, said:

Let's just hope that a 49-51 statistical fluke will save us this time.

Let's hope voters in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carilina and (oddly) New Mexico don't have some weird 'epiphany' on 11/8 because the rest of the country largely doesn't matter.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-October-04, 09:48, said:

The author of "The Making of Donald Trump", who is also a Daily Beast reporter, was on NPR yesterday. He also explains some of it here:

http://www.thedailyb...voided-tax.html

The losses were incurred in his businesses, but there are special tax loopholes for real estate businesses that allow them to pass losses through to the owner. Meanwhile, the companies still paid him multi-million dollar salaries as the CEO. And these were Net Operating Losses, not Capital Losses -- they can be carried back 2 years and forward for 15 years, for a total of 18 years of offsetting income.

And when he told his mortgagers that he couldn't pay back the loans, most of them took the fraction that he offered. Normally this forgiven debt would be considered income, but there's another loophole: if you choose not to depreciate the property, you don't have to declare this income.

Then after he arranged for all these tax benefits to himself, he turned his business into a publically-traded corporation, so the investors took on the burden that was left over.

Yes, I heard that on NPR. And I sort of understood. Since it would never apply to me, I didn't go over it in detail.I am always a bit stunned by these things.

In theory, I see it this way: The government sets tax rules. If an individual follows these rules then he is not to blame if the rules work to his advantage. If someone is to be held accountable, it should be the lawmakers who set the rules.


That's the theory. In practice, I see it as more complicated. A lot of cash goes into manipulating these rules, first by how they are written and then how to gimmick them.

DT has an inventive argument that he has been so successful in this manipulation that he thoroughly understands what the needed changes are. Perhaps so. I certainly confess that I do not understand what the needed changes are. Something is needed, but I am not the one to re-write the tax law. Now if I just trusted DT... Sure, when pigs fly.

I have said this before. There are many things that need doing and quite a few of them are not at all simple. Part of what is so awful about this election is that instead of serious issues we are speaking about calling a pageant winner Miss Housekeeping. Whatever that meant.

[cherdano]

This whole discussion is assuming that all of Trump's tax dealings were legal. Why should we assume so? The campaign has basically admitted that Trump hasn't paid income taxes for a long time. Yet they are still refusing to release any tax returns. Ergo there must be much more damaging information in them.
Meanwhile, his foundation has been investigated by a single reporter. And he alone already found a lot that is unethical (eg using the foundation to pretend that donations to charities are coming from him when they are not), and some that is illegal (eg using foundation money to buy paintings for his own use).

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-04, 10:59, said:

I have said this before. There are many things that need doing and quite a few of them are not at all simple. Part of what is so awful about this election is that instead of serious issues we are speaking about calling a pageant winner Miss Housekeeping. Whatever that meant.

Ken, we agree on a lot. (Not surprising given that location aside, we live in the same little corner of the world.) But sometimes you baffle me.

You don't think it's a big deal whether the POTUS is someone who habitually makes racist and sexist comments?

[Phil]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-04, 13:42, said:

This whole discussion is assuming that all of Trump's tax dealings were legal. Why should we assume so? The campaign has basically admitted that Trump hasn't paid income taxes for a long time. Yet they are still refusing to release any tax returns. Ergo there must be much more damaging information in them.
Meanwhile, his foundation has been investigated by a single reporter. And he alone already found a lot that is unethical (eg using the foundation to pretend that donations to charities are coming from him when they are not), and some that is illegal (eg using foundation money to buy paintings for his own use).

Pretty sure a loss carry-forward (wtf was it for anyway?) Of $900 MM is going to come under some serious scrutiny by an agent, because it's largely a Teflon shield against paying any federal taxes for a very long time.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-04, 13:42, said:

This whole discussion is assuming that all of Trump's tax dealings were legal. Why should we assume so? The campaign has basically admitted that Trump hasn't paid income taxes for a long time. Yet they are still refusing to release any tax returns. Ergo there must be much more damaging information in them.
Meanwhile, his foundation has been investigated by a single reporter. And he alone already found a lot that is unethical (eg using the foundation to pretend that donations to charities are coming from him when they are not), and some that is illegal (eg using foundation money to buy paintings for his own use).

I don't exactly assume that it is legal. It's more that I have no way of knowing, and so it seems a dead end to speculate. I agree with Phil that given the size it would get the attention of the IRS.

The charity stuff needs to be sorted out. I hope it is. Right now I think the tax people and others are in a bit of a tough place. If they go after Trump aggressively there no doubt will be accusations of political motivation, and if they don't do it then they are at least equally vulnerable. Some of the things I have read should be illegal if they aren't, and I think it is very fair to look very closely.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-04, 13:49, said:

Ken, we agree on a lot. (Not surprising given that location aside, we live in the same little corner of the world.) But sometimes you baffle me.

You don't think it's a big deal whether the POTUS is someone who habitually makes racist and sexist comments?

I have thought some about this since you have mentioned it before. Some things bother me ore than others.

Top of the scale (or near the top, with DT there is so much to choose from): Recent suggestions that his supporters should go to minority (he did not say minority he said "you know what I mean", and honestly that it worse) communities on election day for monitoring purposes. This is an incitement to voter intimidation. If someone, white or black or some of each, ends up dead from this I blame him.

At the other end of the racism scale, my father expressed disapproval when Sammy Davis Jr married May Britt. He didn't think it should be forbidden and certainly he didn't think it should in any way be punished, but he thought it wrong. But the the parents of a Jewish friend went through a mourning ceremony when he married a non-Jewish woman. At this personal level, I favor letting people choose as they will on whatever basis they think is right for them. Of course this includes gay marriage although my father, who died in 1977, probably would not agree with that one.

One way of putting this: If everyone is a racist, as seems to be the case if we cast a large enough net, then the word loses its meaning. There is, to me, a world of difference between disapproving of inter-racial marriage, while still accepting the dictum to mind one's own business, on the one hand and prodding white supporters to go monitor black voting districts.

I am sure it is clear that I think Trump is awful. And I really have come to think that there is something wrong with his head. This is not a psychological diagnosis, it is more like what anyone can see. If I started getting up at 3 in the morning to tweet about Miss Universe, or much of anything, Becky would start to worry. All of this WC stuff is bad enough!

I could make a long list of things which each individually is very troublesome which taken together make Trump way beyond being a bad choice. Racist? Sure. But I think there is no tactic that he would reject on moral grounds. Not one. Much of what he says makes that clear. In another age he would be anti-Catholic. Or an anti-Semite. Or anti-Norwegian. Whatever. He has no actual beliefs. It is just a matter of what he thinks will work.

[cherdano]

Ken, I agree with you that the term "racist" is problematic since it makes us think of "ready-to-go-lynching-if-too-many-niggers-move-into-town", when these days it almost always means much less than that. But what terms do you want to use if someone calls "Miss [low-level job]" just because of their race? "Racist" means someone who thinks that one race inferior to another. Calling someone "Miss [inferior job]" because of their race sounds to me as if it is a textbook example of a "racist comment" - implying that someone is inferior because of their race.

You should keep one thing in mind about this story. Alicia Marchado can only speak her mind because she was Miss Universe in the year that Trump bought the company with the rights to the Miss Universe show (1995 I believe). This means that she had to deal with Trump, but didn't have to sign one of Trump's notorious non-disclosure non-criticism agreements. There are probably many Miss Universe contestants who would have similar stories to share, but are afraid to share them because of the legal documents they signed - even if they'd likely be unenforceable in their specific case, do you really want to fight a billionaire in court?

[kenberg]

Short answer:
I did not think of Miss Housekeeping as a racist comment. I didn't understan it at all.


Longer answer:

a. I did not understand why he would call her Miss Houskeeping. I have no idea how she was earning her living.

b. I did not understand how it came across as insulting except for being called "Miss Anything" seems generically insulting unless it is something like Miss Barista when you are speaking to a Barista and you don't know her name.

c. I had not thought of her as being of a different race. I am aware that she is not an American, at least I don't think that she is. Since the title is Miss Universe I assume the holder often not an American. But probably not Martian, I don't tale Universe completely seriously. I don't know where she is from

Here is what I thought: I gather she put on some weight.Having a trim figure was no doubt an asset in gaining the title of Miss Universe so I can see why this a would upset whoever was running this stupid thing, which I guess was Trump. "miss Piggy" was tactless but I can see why her weight would be addressed. Actresses are hired partly on their physical assets. So are news anchors, for that matter. And salespeople. I still remember a a particularly attractive sales woman in Nordstrom's telling me how good that short looked on me. She probably sold a lot of shirts. I don't get what the economics of a Miss Universe contest are, but I suppose they need an attractive title holder. So I understood why someone, although maybe not the big cheese, would speak to her if the weight gain was substantial. Hopefully with tact, not as Miss Piggy. But the Miss Housekeeping made no sense at all to me. I didn't peg it as racist, I would agree it is sexist, but mostly it just seemed stupid..

But his handling of this was bizarre and for someone who wants to be president, that is troubling.

Part of missing the point might be that I do not at all consider housekeeping as a lowly profession. My father installed weatherstripping for a living. To the extent I gave this any thought at all I was proud of him. Now if I had a father who made his living stiffing contractors and getting suckers to place bets in his casinos, I might have been embarrassed.

I close with Kathleen Parker

Quote

Only in the strangest-ever presidential election could a former beauty queen's weight be considered a deal-breaking issue of, if I may, gargantuan proportions. Pretend it's two weeks ago: Who is Alicia Machado?

Exactly

[cherdano]

Ken Mister-Housekeeping Berg, you have been living in the United States of America for a while. Have you noticed that housekeeping jobs are often done by immigrants from Latin America?

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-October-05, 02:29, said:

Ken Mister-Housekeeping Berg, you have been living in the United States of America for a while. Have you noticed that housekeeping jobs are often done by immigrants from Latin America?

We have someone come around once a week to help out. She is as American as I am, maybe more so. Her oldest kid, a boy, is in college doing well, the younger, a girl in middle school, is in some advanced math class.

But yes, I suppose many are immigrants. As was my father. It's not a big deal with me. Anyway, I thought Miss Housekeeping was no doubt dismissive in some way, even if I did not understand what way. But I did not see it as racist. I will still stick with stupid.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-05, 05:02, said:

We have someone come around once a week to help out. She is as American as I am, maybe more so. Her oldest kid, a boy, is in college doing well, the younger, a girl in middle school, is in some advanced math class.

But yes, I suppose many are immigrants. As was my father. It's not a big deal with me. Anyway, I thought Miss Housekeeping was no doubt dismissive in some way, even if I did not understand what way. But I did not see it as racist. I will still stick with stupid.

Have you spent much time in hotels in your long life? How would you characterize most of the women who cleaned your rooms? If you can recall more than two who spoke English without an accent, I'd be surprised.

Alicia Machado is a former beauty queen and now a star on Spanish-language TV, not even close to being a housekeeper. Calling her "Miss Housekeeping" was clealy a racial stereotype, lumping her in with all those other women just because of her ethnicity.

Of course it's also stupid -- aren't all such comments? But it's inconceivable that Trump actually thought she might be a housekeeper.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-04, 10:59, said:

DT has an inventive argument that he has been so successful in this manipulation that he thoroughly understands what the needed changes are. Perhaps so. I certainly confess that I do not understand what the needed changes are. Something is needed, but I am not the one to re-write the tax law. Now if I just trusted DT... Sure, when pigs fly.

This claim also needs some scrutiny. Donald didn't figure out these tax tricks, his accountant did. The author of the article mentioned that he once interviewed Trump, and he wasn't able to answer some basic questions about economic practices.

And regarding Trump's tax returns, his tax preparer once had to testify in court about a tax form. He said that the signature on the form was his, but he hadn't actually prepared that form.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-05, 05:02, said:

We have someone come around once a week to help out. She is as American as I am, maybe more so. Her oldest kid, a boy, is in college doing well, the younger, a girl in middle school, is in some advanced math class.

But yes, I suppose many are immigrants. As was my father. It's not a big deal with me. Anyway, I thought Miss Housekeeping was no doubt dismissive in some way, even if I did not understand what way. But I did not see it as racist. I will still stick with stupid.

I will assume you are just playing dumb here. Barry explained it well. Noone would assume that "Housekeeping" is the career aspiration of someone who has just won Miss Universe. The only plausible connection between Machado and housekeeping is her ethnicity.
Maybe calling you "Mr Redneck-NASCAR-Trump-supporter" would be the equivalent? Look, Ken is an old white guy, get it? Haha!

[kenberg]

I will not win this argument, that is clear. I thought the comment insulting, I thought it dismissive, I didn't think of it as racist. In fact, the comment made no sense to me.

I am giving you the straight story on what my reaction was. If this in some way makes me a lesser person in anyone's eyes, I can't help that.Think of me as you will.

[Phil]

Being from California the housekeeping :: Latino slur was pretty obvious to me. If this was Mr. Universe, Trump might as well called him Mr. Gardener.

I realize in other parts of the country that poorer white people perform these types of jobs and may not fully get the reference but Ken is worldly enough.

If Trump would have called Machado "Miss Walmart" cashier I'm not sure I'd view that as specifically racist.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-05, 10:32, said:

I am giving you the straight story on what my reaction was. If this in some way makes me a lesser person in anyone's eyes, I can't help that.Think of me as you will.

I won't infer from your comment that you are a NASCAR fan, sorry
But you didn't just describe your initial reaction, you also told us that you are sticking by it.

[kenberg]

This has taken a turn that I really do not like. This post contains no position and no argument for or against anything, it is simply an expression of dismay. I wish everyone well, but I need some time off from posting.

[mycroft]

If it had been a generic "Miss [low-level-job]", it might have had "women can't do Real Work" glass-ceiling sexist connotations. If it were that person's job, maybe less so, but it could have been intended as demeaning. Of course, this is the first time that Mr. Trump has referred to someone else in belittling ways and it will never happen again.

But it wasn't generic. It was "Miss Housekeeping", and it was aimed at a South American Latina on a work visa. That's unbelievable, pinpoint targeted racism, and the only comparisons I can come up with I don't feel comfortable typing. Those who can't immediately see that have been living in a bubble - either a non-US one or a "never had to think about it, so I didn't notice" one. Those who can't or won't see it after it is pointed out to them - are Republicans, I guess.

Yeah, that's a nicer word.

[Edit: Ken, I am explicitly not aiming that at you. But there are others who are so blind they will not see, as opposed to do not see.]

Please note that the number of times I have been in the "never had to think about it so I didn't notice" bubble are legion; and they ain't over yet. I am a sexist, racist (ablist, ...) bastard - but I usually catch myself when it happens, and I'm actively trying to become less so. As in bridge, I'm hoping to minimize the number of mistakes I make; especially the number of mistakes I make *twice*.

[y66]

 kenberg, on 2016-October-05, 10:32, said:

I will not win this argument, that is clear. I thought the comment insulting, I thought it dismissive, I didn't think of it as racist. In fact, the comment made no sense to me.

I am giving you the straight story on what my reaction was. If this in some way makes me a lesser person in anyone's eyes, I can't help that.Think of me as you will.

Ken, for what it's worth, I will never stop thinking of you as one of the most thoughtful, tolerant and wise men of the water cooler. On the racism issue, which has come up in other contexts, I think you just see things differently and that part of this is generational. My dad, who was probably 10 years or so older than you, would never have been able to comprehend why calling Miss Universe Miss Housekeeping is racist. An insult definitely. Asinine (a favorite word of his) definitely. But not racist. Some things he just didn't get. Or worry about. I don't think he ever posted online either.