1193
« on: June 22, 2017, 09:59:58 AM »
I'd like to break the OPs rant down and deal with the several parts.
Cut welfare: Absolutely true. Comes in several flavors. 1. Eliminate the new immigrants from getting any fed/state subsidies for five years after they arrive(I think it should be 20 years, but hey - 5 is a good start). 2. Put a lifetime cap on direct welfare payments of 18 years(funny, that's the amount of time from birth to adulthood for a welfare queen), and some other caps for other programs, but all would have a lifetime cap for direct welfare payments. 3. Cut back welfare where the recipient has hidden assets from the feds(bad problem).
Trump's direct payments to landlords: Partly true, mostly false. This is called the Section 8 housing assistance program. Trump does not own any real estate that is directly tied to any Section 8 housing payments. He is a partner in a large real estate trust that owns some redevelopment property that accepts Section 8 payments. I don't know what his stake in it is exactly, but he(and I) are all minority ownership interest. Why does the trust own RE which would be covered by Section 8 payments? Because, the govt tells us that as part of any RE trust where the assets exceed about 5 mil, a certain percent of the holdings MUST be in low-income, or structured relief payment housing - i.e. must accept Section 8. It - is - the - law.
Tax break for one of his golf courses: True. One more more of his courses was converted from a kind of fescue which is high water use to a kind of grass that uses far less water to stay green. The congress(in their infinite wisdom) back in 2009(who was prez?) offered tax rebates for courses which changed grass type. The law is on the books, the golf course qualifies, and Trump is taking LEGAL advantage of the tax break, or dodge, or loophole. BTW, the golf course is part of a collection of assets that is once again publicly owned, and so for the administrators(it is NOT Trump, he's turned all that over to others to manage) to not take advantage of reducing tax liability would be a case of failure to properly reduce taxes and fees, and maximize profits for their shareholders.
Thief and moron. A 'thief' by definition is someone who takes from someone else, or a group of people by force. So - that one's a lie. The moron comment is not worth responding to. Meh - whatev.