Thursday, November 10, 2016

A media member who gets it

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on. 
This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doingwhen he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.


Sunday, October 02, 2016


One of the "deplorables"

Why Trump needs to be president

Yesterday, the NY Times released some details of Donald Trump's 1995 state income tax return showing a loss of $916 million.

As a CPA, this is what upsets me about this whole story.

First, the Times totally mischaracterizes what the tax loss means when it suggests "that could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years."

That's akin to saying that you avoided taxes by claiming a charitable donation on your tax return.

See, this is the law as it pertains to losses. The tax law allows you to deduct past losses against the previous two years of income or the next 18 years. That's the law it it makes sense. Why? Imagine that you had a business that made $0.00 for the years 2014 and 2015. You would pay exactly $0.00 in income tax because you earned no income. Now assume, I lost $100,000 in my 2014 but made $100,000 the following year.

In each case, over that two year span our net incomes amount to zero. Why would one person  pay taxes for the same economic outcome simply because the timing is different? The is the purpose of the net operating loss laws.

Second, It is clear that if you don't hold the politically correct vision of the world, the government will use each and every one of their resources to take you out.

Releasing tax returns, no problem. Using the Dept of Labor to target political adversaries, sweet.. Using the Justice department to seize assets of a guitar manufacturers for the sin of being owned by conservatives, lovin' it.

If that's the kind of country you want to be a part of.....congratulations....... you've got it and a vote for The Billary means more of the same.

But remember that when your neighbor finds your medical records and spreads the shit around the neighborhood or maybe calls the police for a "swatting" prank or the government seizes the cash you took out of the bank for a motorcycle you saw on Craigslist and decided it was drug money they get to keep.

That's a society where the people are subjects of the government.

Remember this. Nothing changes if nothing changes.


Friday, September 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton: ‘'Why aren't I 50 points ahead’ of Trump?''

Why aren't you up by 50 points? Have you watched your own videos?