Are we better off with somebody deeply flawed and incompetent or deeply flawed but competent?
That's a good question. Not an easy question to answer. I would say flawed but competent, to provide some assurance to our allies and deter threats. The primary job of the executive branch is protecting the country. Everything else is secondary.
Incompetent, however, has its advantages. The incompetent administration can't get anything done, and more often than not that's a good thing. Status quo is never the worst option. Ever.
When you say "Hillary Hate" I think it's safe to assume that is why you also think she lost both times. What am I missing?
A lot of the male visceral haters can't explain why. A few actually have been quoted, or shown on TV or heard on radio saying women can't handle the office. There are a lot of those people, but not enough to defeat her. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate and ran a worse campaign than Trump.
The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
That said, there were only four things I really care about.
1) Putting real conservatives on SCOTUS - He hit a homer.
2) DOL Fiduciary Rule that we can live with - everything is moving in the right direction so far.
3) Lower corporate taxes - Too early to tell. Be done with healthcare one way or the other and move the freak on to taxes.
4) Moving our embassy to Jerusalem - He pussied out...big time.
DOL just announced it would be delaying implementation of the second (and most problematic) part of the conflict of interest rule from 1/1/18 to 7/1/19 as it looks at potential revisions to the rule.
I'm liking what I think I'm seeing (I'm no tax expert) with today's proposed changes by the House in the corporate tax regime.
I'm no tax expert either, but one of my business partners is. He thinks the proposal relative to the corporate tax regime will lower the disincentive corporations have to repatriate foreign earnings back to the US. If that is in fact true that is a good thing, IMO. No sense in having huge sums of money parked in, say, Singapore. Bring it home and put it to use.
Yes, this is accurate and was a big goal of Trump/Congress.
Corporate tax rate goes down to 20%.
Disincentivizes shifting income to low tax jurisdictions and corporate inversions.
No, that's not accurate. Foreign earnings will be taxed at a minimum of 15%. If a company shows on a global basis that it paid more to foreign governments, it wouldn't pay. If it paid less, it would pay the difference.
The tax must be paid whether profits are repatriated or not.
Replies
That's a good question. Not an easy question to answer. I would say flawed but competent, to provide some assurance to our allies and deter threats. The primary job of the executive branch is protecting the country. Everything else is secondary.
Incompetent, however, has its advantages. The incompetent administration can't get anything done, and more often than not that's a good thing. Status quo is never the worst option. Ever.
A lot of the male visceral haters can't explain why. A few actually have been quoted, or shown on TV or heard on radio saying women can't handle the office. There are a lot of those people, but not enough to defeat her. She lost because she was an unappealing candidate and ran a worse campaign than Trump.
DOL just announced it would be delaying implementation of the second (and most problematic) part of the conflict of interest rule from 1/1/18 to 7/1/19 as it looks at potential revisions to the rule.
I'm liking what I think I'm seeing (I'm no tax expert) with today's proposed changes by the House in the corporate tax regime.
I'm no tax expert either, but one of my business partners is. He thinks the proposal relative to the corporate tax regime will lower the disincentive corporations have to repatriate foreign earnings back to the US. If that is in fact true that is a good thing, IMO. No sense in having huge sums of money parked in, say, Singapore. Bring it home and put it to use.
Corporate tax rate goes down to 20%.
Disincentivizes shifting income to low tax jurisdictions and corporate inversions.
The tax must be paid whether profits are repatriated or not.