seanbrock 1,684 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Trump did not inherit his fortune from solely his father. Was he lucky to be able to afford good schooling? Yes. Has he sat on his ass and just let money flow in? No. Trump busted his ass when he was younger. He has made money by being smarter, and if you are being told otherwise you're listening to inaccurate media. Trump gives a fuckton to charity too btw. have you ever heard the phrase money makes money? 400 million adjusted over like 30-40 years of inflation has be in in the billions lol. You can hire realm smart people with that kind of money. There's also the fact that he can afford to pay his workers but instead declares his business bankrupt and screws thousands of employees. You have an answer for that too? Edited October 8, 2015 by seanbrock Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted October 9, 2015 He only inherited about $60 million, I believe, and that wasn't until long after he had become rich. He only really worked with his dad early on. His dad by no means gift wrapped millions to Donald. He actually just wanted Donald to take over the family business and Donald wanted to go do bigger things. What the fuck is making you think Donald files bankruptcy on everything? He's filed like 4 times on various businesses that were folding and that's over the course of many many years. He's successful 95% of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted October 9, 2015 https://www.quora.com/Did-Donald-Trump-inherit-a-lot-of-money-and-then-increase-his-net-worth-at-an-unremarkable-rate Trump's wealth has more or less grown at an average rate right along with the S&P 500. 4 times he declared bankruptcy and didn't pay his employees even though he could have paid them and still been rich and if he was such a great business man he could have made that money back. To me that's somebody who never deserved the head start he got. He's very clearly a bad person. Lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cherry 1,302 Posted October 9, 2015 I don't think Quora is exactly the most reliable of sources, but my own source is Trump's book, so I'm not gonna debate sources. The issue with your view of needing to be a great businessman is that you think a great businessman can easily make money back on failed projects. Part of why Trump is so successful is that he plays his cards right no matter what he is dealt. He's had a few blunders over the years but a majority of the time he is very good with his money and investments. Has he screwed over some of his past employees? Yes. Any company that declares bankruptcy has screwed over its employees. Trump is and for a long time has been a huge market force. He is a huge part of things like S&P500 rising at the rate that they have. I think your own source has basically said that if Trump sat on his money with investments in stock he'd be worth about $8.3 billion. Instead he constantly worked to build himself up and make deals on his own, which put him at around $8.7 billion. He didn't just put an inheritance in and let it build itself. He did it personally. According to http://dqydj.net/sp-500-return-calculator/ if he put in $120 million in 1970 and took it out last year, he'd only be at around $2.6 billion as a return investment for S&P500. Trump is not a valid argument for the death tax. Target a family like the Waltons who have as much wealth as the bottom 40%. Don't target a man who has busted his ass in business for 50 years and deserves a decent portion of the money he has made. Also you said he inherited $400 million then sourced him inheriting $120 million. Get your sources straight, Sean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted October 9, 2015 Semantics. Point still stands that it's a hell of a lot easier to make a fortune when you start off with one. Point also still stands that it's wrong to screw people out of pay by declaring bankruptcy when you can afford to pay them out of your own pocket a couple times over. I picked Trump as an example because he's running for president. The Walton's are another great example though. Funny part is that even with a death tax those people would STILL be exorbitantly rich. Would the quality of their lives change even a little? No but it could help better the lives of a lot of people if they spread the wealth a little but yeah, fuck the poor. What a bunch of losers. I wonder if some of you even know poverty. I do, but there are people who have it a lot worse. Now days I have a good job and can do for myself, but I actually remember poverty as a kid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 9, 2015 Are you really naive enough to believe that taking 40% of the Walton's wealth when they die will help that many of the impoverished? Is that what it's really go towards? Let's get real, Sean. And people on food stamps eat better than I do. There's a problem with that picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 9, 2015 Just because we have issues with how taxes are taken doesn't mean we don't also think spending habits should change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 9, 2015 Feel free to talk about those changes you want in spending habits anytime. We've heard the , " poor people need help " and " you don't know what it's like to be poor " plenty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted October 9, 2015 Are you really naive enough to believe that taking 40% of the Walton's wealth when they die will help that many of the impoverished? Is that what it's really go towards? Let's get real, Sean. And people on food stamps eat better than I do. There's a problem with that picture.Ok and here's the obvious counter point. I bet at least some of it would and at least that's a start and at least it's better than none of it. Like blots was trying to say just because one thing is an issue doesn't mean another thing isn't. What exactly is all that money going to do in the Walton's off shore bank accounts? It's not going to stimulate the economy. Demand does that. By the way all disagreements and petty bitching aside (not saying I haven't been guilty) it's pretty awesome to have communities like this that are made up of young people that actually give a fuck and have an opinion about politics. I think we can all agree on that so right on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Socal 524 Posted October 10, 2015 Quick poll. Is anyone here rich? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RazorStar 4,025 Posted October 10, 2015 I am rich in spirit, you sad sack of shit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted October 10, 2015 Quick poll. Is anyone here rich? I would say that several of us have gone through periods where we make good money. I've never been rich but I do have stretches where I can put away good chunks of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 10, 2015 Feel free to talk about those changes you want in spending habits anytime. We've heard the , " poor people need help " and " you don't know what it's like to be poor " plenty. Don't worry, I won't just complain about you and not answer the questions. Here are some things I would do if I was supreme ruler of America. 1) Capital Gains tax rate is equal to income tax rate. Kinda surprised this isn't already a thing. 2) Military Budget cut back. We can't go to war everywhere in the world, but I don't really think we need to. 3) Social Security Age bumped to 68. This one sucks to do, but it will save massive amounts of money. People live longer than when the Social Security Age was set back in the 30s and the current group of retiring baby boomers are going to put a huge strain on the rest of America. 4) I'll throw you libertarians a bone: Legal, taxable pot. Won't really have much of an impact on US Spending as a whole, but I'll need someone to vote for me after I piss literally everyone off with my first three things. Obviously not everything, but thats a start at least. Quick poll. Is anyone here rich? If it is not changed, I will probably pay the death tax when my parents die. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sarge+ 3,436 Posted October 11, 2015 Totally agree 110& on cutting defense spending. We spend more on the military than the next 26 countries combined 25 of whom are allies. Even if we cut it 10%, we would still have everything we need for our military and we'd save a shitload of money to boot. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia Posted October 11, 2015 Trump did not inherit his fortune from solely his father. Was he lucky to be able to afford good schooling? Yes. Has he sat on his ass and just let money flow in? No. Trump busted his ass when he was younger. He has made money by being smarter, and if you are being told otherwise you're listening to inaccurate media. Trump gives a fuckton to charity too btw. I thought Sean's point was that Trump would not be where he is if he comes from an average household, which is probably true. And for what it's worth, Trump would be much richer if he'd simply invested his money in index stocks instead. Compared to his peers, he's not very good at amassing wealth. Seems like the idea that he's some genius businessman is way overblown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) 2) Military Budget cut back. We can't go to war everywhere in the world, but I don't really think we need to. I agree with trimming the defense budget, but I'd need a plan if I was to buy into your campaign. The problem with just saying "cute defense" is that it doesn't account for the future. People may disagree on whether we should even care about whether another Cold War starts, but if it does, what then? Again, I think defense spending should be more efficient and shouldn't just have a blank check whenever they want (which is kind of the case with how much waste they have). But, the example I brought up with my roommate when he said we should just cut defense in half is the carrier program. We're always building one. Why? Because the cost to close down that facility, stop production, then bring back those workers and restart production once it's been halted would add considerable amounts to the cost of producing a carrier. That's not the same with everything. I really don't give a damn about that factory in Lima that produces the Abrams. Yeah, people will lose jobs but that's how the world works. I don't like the notion of forcing the Army to buy tanks they don't need. I would support things like closing down factories that would be relatively easy to restart and trimming down if not just deactivating some bases, in addition to curtailing procurement spending. But the reason I'm cautious with defense cuts is that a lot of people don't realize how inefficient and costly it would be to just outright cut stuff like shipbuilding or building advanced airplanes. EDIT: I was going to include this in my original post, but I couldn't find a source for it at first. Defense procurement is a bit ironic in that you sink a lot of costs into things, and then you don't get much if anything out of it (ironically to try and cut costs), and costs skyrocket. That's probably true for any R&D. Anyway, people point to things like the JSF, F-22, and B-2 as unnecessarily expensive programs, when in fact these programs tend to drop in per-unit cost as you produce more. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everyone-who-wanted-more-f-22s-is-being-proven-right-1732105884 Costs were slated to have continued to drop if another lot of about 53 jets were built to meet the Air Force’s stated minimum fleet size requirement of 243 airframes. But it never happened. Obviously, building the full 700 some fighters would have still cost A LOT. But even cutting that figure in half would have dropped down the costs of production significantly. The same is probably true for the B-2, and the same will likely be true for the F-35. Things like fighters that are so precise in how they have to be built are pretty expensive to build at first, but like anything once you start producing them more efficiently they drop in price. Edited October 16, 2015 by OSUViking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) My dad is in the Navy, has been for a long time. He headed up a research project that has, as of right now, developed the laser weaponry system LaWS. He served on nuclear submarines and served in the Cold War. And yet he thinks we need to cut defense spending by a third. We spend more on the military than the next 26 countries combined. Of those 26 countries, 24 are allies. That is fucking insane. We have absolutely zero business spending that much money on the military when our country's economy is in the shape it is in and our health care system is a mess. Exactly what are we afraid is going to happen? China is going to grow their military by 26 times in a matter of weeks when we wouldn't be able to respond to it? Military budget cuts should be the first thing we hit. It's not just about cutting for the sake of cutting. Some of the things are just flat out stupid. For example, my dad wanted a new conference room. He wanted some nice chairs- and a lot of them. He found 80 chairs for approximately $50 apiece for a total of $4,000. A lot, for a bunch of chairs, sure. However, the US Navy has contracted with a single company for the producing of furniture for this type of thing and they are legally required to do business with this company. So he is forced to go to them for the same chairs. Guess what they charged him per chair? $800. So a purchase of $4,000 becomes $64,000. For chairs. Tables in the room? Same problem. What could have cost around $1,000 for two really solid long tables instead cost nearly $20,000. We are spending money we do not need to spend. There are plenty of places to cut spending, and quite a bit comes from this utterly stupid idea of contracting with just one company. Let the companies compete for the best quality for the best price. Look, I understand we don't want to skimp on quality for body armor and weaponry. But that doesn't mean that every other thing we buy for the military has to also fit that standard. There are plenty of places where we could cut back on military spending and be just fine. Edited October 16, 2015 by Thanatos19 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) $800. So a purchase of $4,000 becomes $64,000. For chairs. Tables in the room? Same problem. What could have cost around $1,000 for two really solid long tables instead cost nearly $20,000. We are spending money we do not need to spend. There are plenty of places to cut spending, and quite a bit comes from this utterly stupid idea of contracting with just one company. Let the companies compete for the best quality for the best price. Look, I understand we don't want to skimp on quality for body armor and weaponry. But that doesn't mean that every other thing we buy for the military has to also fit that standard. There are plenty of places where we could cut back on military spending and be just fine. That's the stuff I'm talking about. Here at Wright Patt, a friend of mine said her dad went out and bought 30 new TVs for the building since they had something like 5,000+ in surplus funds that they had to use up. That stuff is ridiculous. But it's just straight up impractical to just indiscriminately cut defense. We can differ on whether we should have carriers or not, but we're going to have them regardless of what we all think. And cutting procurement spending for carriers* is going to cost a whole lot more money than it will save in the long run. More stuff the military should fix is R&D. Fucking sunk an insane amount of money into the Crusader SPG system and then canceled it. They do that with so many projects. They just have so much extra money that they can just say, "Hey, let's waste time and money developing this and then cancel it because we need something to use up the funds so we don't lose our funding next year". That stuff is ridiculous and I agree it needs to be fixed, but it just irks me when people go after the carriers because cutting those will just cost more money. *I don't have a hard on for carriers, just for the record. It's just something that my friends/acquaintances always go after first, and it is also a good model for my argument of it being too costly to shut down and then re-open 10-15 years down the line. Edited October 16, 2015 by OSUViking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sarge+ 3,436 Posted October 17, 2015 We could cut our military budget by 10% and still have everything we need 5 times over. Anyone have any proof otherwise? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted October 17, 2015 What if we want to invade 4 countries at once? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 17, 2015 We can occupy the whole world if we wanted. Also, not that Obama is extending our presence in the middle east indefinitely, we're gonna need that increased spending. Having a "strong military" these days means having a strong military presence in the world. Unfortunate we can't build a military to actually just protect our borders. War is money, though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted October 17, 2015 We can reduce our budget a good amount and still have everything we need. I'm just saying that going after things that people view as "unnecessary" (a common theme among people I know: carriers, fighters, etc.) will drastically increase expenses in the long-run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted October 17, 2015 We can occupy the whole world if we wanted. Also, not that Obama is extending our presence in the middle east indefinitely, we're gonna need that increased spending. Having a "strong military" these days means having a strong military presence in the world. Unfortunate we can't build a military to actually just protect our borders. War is money, though.Don't we sort of already effectively occupy the world. We have military bases across the world. We've done a great job of making our economy so large that the world is dependent on us. Not only do we rule the world with our crazy military but our economy too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sparty 110 Posted October 17, 2015 Why are we talking about shit like we're in the Bohemian Grove? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted October 17, 2015 Why are we talking about shit like we're in the Bohemian Grove? What do you mean? Bohemian Grove is pretty shrouded in secrecy. The fact that we have bases and a military presence around the world isn't very secret. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
