Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.

 Comments Off on Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan cut Trump’s taxes.
Nov 072016
 

It was Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan that allowed Donald Trump to claim his Altantic City losses and not pay taxes. Honesty would have Bill Clinton stepping up three months ago and owning the law.

From a DNC staffer’s email –

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

READ: – Courtesy of Wikileaks…

Date: 2016-05-20 14:19
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

I know very little about this, but from a quick sweep it looks like passive-loss relief was a core component of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax plan:

AP: Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well. “The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.” …

Chicago Sun-Times: Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate. Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee.

The Associated Press March 1, 1993, Monday, PM cycle Clinton Plan Has Something For Wall Street
BYLINE: By CHET CURRIER, AP Business Writer
SECTION: Business News
LENGTH: 594 words
DATELINE: NEW YORK

Though President Clinton’s economic ideas have drawn a lot of fire from Wall Street, his plan could well be a boon to the business of banks, brokers and other financial-services industries. In the eyes of some of his critics on the Street, Clinton has presented himself as a Robin Hood intent on redistributing wealth according to a system of “fairness” that is open to dispute. At the same time, however, observers say there is a very real prospect that his proposals could lead to greater demand for a wide variety of Wall Street’s merchandise, from municipal bonds to individual retirement accounts. “Everyone’s got a bellyache about Clinton’s proposal,” observed Ethan Siegel, a Washington analyst at Prudential Securities.

“While the market mulls over the proposal and its likely impact on the economy, I’d point out that there are pluses in the package that cannot be ignored.

“The overall message remains that there is going to be less Washington money for high-income retirees – in both pension and health care benefits. As more and more people find it necessary to provide for their own retirements, this will be a plus for the mutual funds, the financial planners and the banks.”

Analysts like Siegel raise these visions at a time when expectations for financial businesses are already on the rise. As of late last week, Standard & Poor’s index of financial stocks sported a 23.31 percent gain over the past 12 months. That stood in sharp contrast to an advance of just 3.08 percent for S&P’s index of industrial stocks, and a 6.88 percent rise overall for S&P’s 500-stock composite index. The financial group’s performance reflects the fact that financial firms of many types have been recovering from the early-1990s credit crunch, and reviving their profitability, with help from falling interest rates. As many analysts see it, these businesses also stand to benefit from demographic forces as the nation’s population ages in the years ahead, dramatically increasing the size of the over-40 set. This is the group that has always provided many of Wall Street’s best customers.

Richard Hoffman, chief investment strategist at Cowen & Co., cites as a primary market theme of the ’90s “anything that 40-year-olds and above buy and use.” Wall Street is already well into a prolonged marketing blitz seeking to woo this horde of potential clients as it faces the need to prepare in earnest for its retirement years.

Clinton’s proposals already have touched off a boom in the tax-exempt municipal bond business, based on the likelihood of higher tax brackets for upper-income individuals and couples. By the same reasoning, people’s appetites would stand to be whetted as well for annuities, life insurance, and retirement savings vehicles like IRAs, Keogh plans and employer-sponsored 401(k) plans – all of which offer some degree of shelter from taxes. Siegel says ripple effects will likely reach other investment markets as well.

“The Clinton proposal should be good for the real estate market with its easing of the passive loss rules, its easing of the rules that govern pension fund investment in commercial and debt-financed real estate, and its easing of the oversight regarding bank lending policies.”

Many Wall Streeters object to Clinton’s expressed faith in government, rather than private industry and market forces, as a driving force behind change and progress. From another angle, however, says Rao Chalasani at Kemper Securities in Chicago, “the president called for turning to investment, away from consumption.”

Chicago Sun-Times February 26, 1993, 
FRIDAY , FINAL Clinton Economic Plan Gives Real Estate a Break
BYLINE: Kenneth R. Harney
SECTION: HOMELIFE; THE NATION’S HOUSING; Pg. 6;
N LENGTH: 711 words

Real estate owners, investors and brokers could emerge from the 1993 federal legislative sweepstakes with something they haven’t seen since 1981: A tax bill that giveth rather than taketh away. Compared with other key sectors of the economy that were asked to share the pain of deficit-reduction, real estate came out as a net winner in the Clinton administration’s economic recovery program unveiled last week. Not a big winner, to be sure; but not a loser by any stretch.

First, the Clinton administration posted a last-minute hands-off sign on two of the fattest, and most politically sensitive, potential sources of new tax revenue: deductions for home mortgage interest and local property-tax payments. Plans for limiting both were on the table until late in the budget-crafting process, according to administration sources. One official said key staff members favored at least modest cuts in the deductions for philosophical as well as revenue-raising reasons.

Second, the fingerprints of pro-real estate legislators like former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), now secretary of the Treasury, are clear in the Clinton package. While chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Bentsen supported efforts to encourage pension funds to put more of their money into housing and real estate. The Clinton plan includes precisely such a plank. Bentsen also supported efforts to roll back features of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that severely penalized new investment in commercial real estate. Those provisions hampered resales of office buildings, apartment complexes and other property financed by failed S & Ls, which were glutting the market in his home state.

Among the biggest impediments to real estate investment: the controversial “passive loss” system created by the 1986 reform act. That law defined all forms of rental real estate as “passive” activities, no matter how much time and effort owners spend on managing or operating their real estate. Under the law, losses generated by passive activities cannot be deducted against ordinary income from other, active sources. Instead they can only be written off against income generated by other passive activities. If there is no passive income available to a taxpayer, the 1986 reform law required the losses to be “carried forward” – put on ice until the property is sold or the taxpayer generates net passive income to offset the frozen passive losses.

Last year, Bentsen’s Senate Finance Committee approved a change in the passive-loss system designed to provide partial tax-relief to property owners – and new buyers – who are “active participants” in real estate trades or businesses. Basically, the plan allowed such owners to escape the clutches of passive-loss treatment, and to write off losses from their real estate against net income derived from real estate.

Guess what ended up in Bill Clinton’s tax package? You got it: The very passive-loss relief plan that sailed through Bentsen’s committee. But that’s just part of the new tax plan’s lean toward real estate. Consider these other features: Permanent reauthorization of the two most important sources of financing for affordable housing. These are the low-income tax credit for subsidizing rental units, and the mortgage revenue bond program that provides cut-rate mortgage money for more than 100,000 modest-income first-time home buyers per year.

Both programs have expired periodically when Congress failed to approve annual or biannual tax bill reauthorizations. A rollback of the 1992 federal tax bill’s proposed depreciation standards for commercial real estate. The Clinton plan calls for a 36-year depreciation schedule for non-residential property. While that’s up from the 31.5-year schedule included in the current tax code, it’s four years below the 40-year standard contained in the 1992 tax legislation, which was vetoed by President Bush.

Commercial real estate lobbyists would have preferred no change at all, but even last year they accepted the 40-year standard as a necessary revenue-raiser in exchange for passive-loss relief. The Clinton package turns out to be kinder and gentler to real estate, in other words, even when it passes the hat looking for more tax dollars.

 

From: Graham, Caroline
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:07 PM
To: Miller, Lindsey; Dillon, Lauren; Bauer, Nick; Roberts, Kelly; Sarge, Matthew Cc: Brinster, Jeremy; Dieter, Austin
Subject: RE: WaPo: Trump’s income tax returns once became public. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.

Brinster – do we have any boomerang here?

These are the specifics on 78/79. As long as Brinster doesn’t see a flag, then I’d like to round all of this up in a doc, but tighten up the frame a bit and make sure we’re driving the “Trump’s always in it for himself” narrative. That should help downplay his call for higher taxes on the wealthy (non-real estate) folks.

Trump Paid No Taxes Due to Losses on Rental Properties. A Division of Gaming Enforcement report from October 1981 stated: “The Division notes that in 1978 and 1979 Trump incurred no federal income tax liability. In 1979, the lack of such liability is primarily attributable to losses incurred by Trump in the operation of rental properties located at Third Avenue, Fifth Avenue, East 56th Street, East 57th Street, East 6lst Street and East 62nd Street, New York City, New York. The expenses for the operation of the aforesaid rental properties were actual cash disbursements as reflected in Trump’s cash disbursements journal. The foregoing losses were also traced to interest due on amounts owed to Fred C. Trump and Chase Manhattan Bank during 1978 and 1979. Additionally, Trump incurred losses during 1978 and 1979 in the operations of the Park Briar Associates, Regency-Lexington Partners and 220 Prospect Street Company, partnerships in which Trump has an interest.” [Division of Gaming Enforcement Report to the Casino Control Commission, 10/16/81]

Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…

 Comments Off on Advocating for honesty – while supporting a flawed candidate…
Oct 012016
 

We established this org to promote ‘the election of officials who perform their responsibilities with honesty and integrity.’

Ugh.

Well, despite obvious and deeply ingrained corruption within many levels and agencies of our federal government – our goal and hope remains. Just as we said from the beginning (because this level of political dishonesty did not happen over night) – we will continue to push for and promote honesty amongst our politicians.

This does not mean we can only vote for those with impeccable character. That would be impossible – for at this point in time there is none.

But the chances of our nation nominating a person of impeccable character in 2016 were never good.

Good character is so sorely lacking within our society as a whole, and hatred of “Christian” standards is too high.  Members of our society openly celebrate vulgarity and self-indulgence, parading it in the streets and glorifying it in movies, books and games. In this environment, when candidates have even mentioned Biblical standards, they have been vilified.

Godly candidates did not win the nomination for presidency. Period.

Good, honest people did run for office of the presidency.  They were not nominated.

That all said, we, as an organization continue to insist our state and federal governments embody honesty and integrity. We will not stop pushing and praying for honest elected officials.

At this point in time – only one of our presidential candidates has a long history of corruption while in office – and this is where the line must be drawn.  Only ONE of our presidential candidates has manipulated the DOJ, FBI and other entities to cover her corruption. Only ONE has used her position of political power to financially benefit herself.

We stand against this person and will do everything in our limited power to keep her out of office.

The following questions were written by a man named YJ Draiman. We believe these unanswered questions (and many others) need to be asked at the next debate:

Mrs. Clinton:

  • When you left the White House after your husband’s last term as president, why did you steal 200,000.00 worth of furniture, china, and artwork that you were forced to return?
  • Mrs. Clinton, when you were Secretary of State, why did you Solicit contributions from foreign governments for the Clinton foundation after you promised President Obama you would not?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why do you and your husband claim to contribute millions of dollars to charity for a tax write off when it goes to your family foundation that gives out less than 15% of the funds you collect and you use the balance to support yourself tax free?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why are you unable to account for 6 billion dollars of State department funds that seem to have disappeared while you were Secretary of State?
  • Mrs. Clinton, why did you say you were broke when you left the White House, but you purchased a 2 million home, built an addition for the secret service, and charge the tax payers of the Untied States rent in an amount equal to the entire mortgage?
  • Mrs. Clinton, how is it that your daughter, Chelsea, can afford to buy a 10.5 million apartment in New York City shortly after you left the White House?
  • Speaking of Chelsea, how is it that her first paying job, in her late 20’s, was for more than the President of the United States’ salary? Was there a quid pro quo of any sort involved?
  • We would also like to know about METRO CARE HOME SERVICES. Their address is the same as Chelsea’s apartment. What’s the deal with that?
  • Mrs. Clinton why did you lie to the American people about the terrorist attack in Benghazi but managed to tell the truth to your daughter the same night it happened?

This is just the tip of the iceberg of questions that must be answered.

http://www.dakotansforhonestyinpolitics.com/

– https://www.facebook.com/DakotansforHonestyinPolitics/

Clinton’s History of Corruption –

 Comments Off on Clinton’s History of Corruption –
Aug 122016
 

(Courtesy of the Washington Times)

As of August 2016…

1. Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached.

2. Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.

3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.

4. Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.

5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.

6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.

7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.

8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.

9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.

10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.

11. Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.

12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.

13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.

14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.

15. Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?

16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.

17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.

18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.

19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?

20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.

21. Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.

Hillary Clinton says she’ll put Bill ‘in charge’ of fixing economy

 Comments Off on Hillary Clinton says she’ll put Bill ‘in charge’ of fixing economy
May 232016
 

 

Hillary Clinton has been campaigning since 2008 as “the first woman president.”  She has inferred she can not only do just as good a job as any male candidate, but because she’s been both Senator and Secretary of State, she can do a better job than any other candidate.

On the one hand, she wants people to believe she is the woman to prove ‘women can do anything.’  “I am woman, hear me roar.”

On the other hand, she wants people to think her husband will be her co-president  – and told one group that Bill will handle the economy for her because “he is good at that kind of thing.”

So is she capable of running the country on her own, or isn’t she?

She expects all women to rally around her, and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said any woman who doesn’t help her win can go to hell. …(or, in her more polite language, ‘there is a special place in hell’ for them.)

Yet on Sunday, May 15, she told a crowd in Kentucky “I will put my husband in charge of revitalizing the economy ’cause he knows what he’s doing.”

So…what is she saying – that she doesn’t know what she is doing?

This will be the first President in American history to hand over a major part of the job over to her spouse.  Will the First Husband end up managing all Affairs of State, while Hillary attends State dinners and funerals?  (Well… if that is all she needs to do, then she is qualified… because that is all she did as SOS).

…or…maybe she is playing the good wife’ – stepping aside and letting her husband take the lead as so many women her age have done through the years.

Either way…what kind of example is that for the daughters of feminists?

…Perhaps feminists will say to their daughters, “Don’t worry dear, this was just a baby step.  She is elderly and kind of stuck in old ruts. We’ll have a better candidate next time.”

Come on people. This candidate has just admitted she isn’t up for the job. There are term limits for a reason – and Bill Clinton has already had his turn as president.  I, for one, am not interested in electing Bill Clinton to a third term through the faux candidacy of his wife.

When we elect a woman president, it will be a woman who can hold her own and be a role model for our children.

And not only hold her own, but be a person of honesty, integrity, and humility. There are a lot of people to choose from with intelligence, skills and character.  We do not have to settle for Hillary Clinton.

 

Read Article: If she’s elected president, Hillary Clinton says she’ll appoint her husband, Bill, to oversee the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news/economy/hillary-bill-clinton-economic-job-growth/