[olldflame]

Although her self-characterization of being non-partisan is somewhat questionable at times, Sharyl is pretty legit.

This makes a lot more sense. Wouldn't doubt for a second that some of them are among the anonymous sources. Also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Trump owns up to it and doubles down.

[TH Spangler]

Although her self-characterization of being non-partisan is somewhat questionable at times, Sharyl is pretty legit.

This makes a lot more sense. Wouldn't doubt for a second that some of them are among the anonymous sources. Also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Trump owns up to it and doubles down.

Yep, if so he's probably right again.

[thepostman]

The whole thing is asinine. This kind of strategy didn't work for Hillary, do the democrats think this will work because Joe is more likable?

[thepostman]

I also think the tax deferral is more damaging than this unconfirmed story of Trump bashing the troops. It is odd that this is the story. Maybe that is why Trump keeps bringing it up on his twitter account. He is a master of misdirection.

[Purple Haize]

I like Sharyl’s work. And she is spot on here I’m seeing it in my interactions with people who got all lathered up about the Atlantic story. Their narrative seems to be exactly that. From “he said it” to “ he could have said it” to “ I can see him saying it because of the things he said in Public” to “Look at all the bad things he said about military people (Brass) He obviously HATES the military “
@thepostman you are right it is asinine. But I did predict Trump would turn this into a positive and it’s trending that way. “The Public” will see yet another manufactured outrage by “The Press” and start saying “yeah those Generals only wanted us to go to War. I don’t like them either” and a dose of “Trump cares about the everyday soldier. I agree it didn’t work for HRC and it’s starting to backfire on Biden

[Purple Haize]

I also think the tax deferral is more damaging than this unconfirmed story of Trump bashing the troops. It is odd that this is the story. Maybe that is why Trump keeps bringing it up on his twitter account. He is a master of misdirection.

The tax deferral is obviously setting up a battle down the road with the next Congress. Trump can claim (rightfully) that the House failed to act in providing relief to the American worker so he did what he could do. That puts the ball in Congresses court After failing to provide a stimulus do they in effect Tax the American worker for having Corona Stimulus?
Congress can claim this only helped The Rich and obviously they can afford to pay it back so why is it an issue?

[thepostman]

Then nobody takes the blame and the average American loses. As always.

It is a terrible move and I couldn't care less about congress. Trump wasn't forced to sign the executive order and hus administration is purposely avoiding the deferral language.

Clearly I'm really salty about it. Haha

[Purple Haize]

Then nobody takes the blame and the average American loses. As always.

It is a terrible move and I couldn't care less about congress. Trump wasn't forced to sign the executive order and hus administration is purposely avoiding the deferral language.

Clearly I'm really salty about it. Haha

I could not agree with your first sentence more!

Trump had to do something. The House failing to act made him act to do something and this was it. People who need it at least have money now whereas they wouldn’t before
As for deferral I’m not sure the President is allowed to make the call whether the money is to be paid back or not. That seems like a House issue. Otherwise Presidents could pick and chooses who what when and where to tax
Again, I’m not a fan of it either. If you are t making us pay you now then don’t make us pay you later. Government is changing the rules not us. Of course if it ends up not having to get paid back I really wish my company would have waited a couple weeks to pay my bonus. Taxes on those are killer!

[thepostman]

He didn't have to do anything. Doing nothing would've been better than this.

Just my opinion.

I also hate executive orders with the passion so this just embodies so much I dislike about the current state of our federal government.

[Purple Haize]

He didn't have to do anything. Doing nothing would've been better than this.

Just my opinion.

I also hate executive orders with the passion so this just embodies so much I dislike about the current state of our federal government.

Disagree. If he does nothing than the Democrats will say “See? He doesn’t care about Americans. He’s done nothing to help ease the economic burdens of the working men and women during the COVID crisis”. Which takes the focus off their inability to do anything
I don’t like it either, unless they let us keep our money. Then I’m all for it

[thepostman]

I don't care about the democrats. They would've found another way to screw up their chances at winning and they still would've found a way to say Trump doesn't care.

[stokesjokes]

I don't think Trump is in a position where he can do nothing. If he does nothing, he kills his re-election chances. I wish he could live up to his reputation as "deal-maker" and work something out with congress, but it can't happen when both sides are intransigent on some things.

There are many days where I start leaning more and more Mennonite and don't want to be involved in the political process.

[SumItUp]

The EO did not require businesses and employees to stop paying. It was an option. If the tax burden is removed at the start of the year after the election year politicking, then those businesses and employees that paid through this period will experience instant tax relief. If it is not removed, life goes on.

[Purple Haize]

I don't care about the democrats. They would've found another way to screw up their chances at winning and they still would've found a way to say Trump doesn't care.

You’re not wrong. But Republicans care about what message the Democrats are going to put out there and Vice versa

[RubberMallet]

Yeah in terms of the election, he had to act. obviously none of us think that someone should be making gvt decisions based on the idea they'd like to be elected.

the issue is that his power is limited monetarily. I do not believe a president can not initiate QE with an executive order. the fed is independent but acts when congress deems it appropriate.

He can screw with taxes so that's what he did even though its really a steaming pile of nothing burger.

But there is a coming clash in regards to social security. this was the first year that its had to dip into its surplus to pay bills. and this may have been the first step to overhauling the system. keep in mind that SS $ is basically invested in TIPS which will have a terrible ROI moving forward. surplus will be depleted by 2035 .

[thepostman]

The EO did not require businesses and employees to stop paying. It was an option. If the tax burden is removed at the start of the year after the election year politicking, then those businesses and employees that paid through this period will experience instant tax relief. If it is not removed, life goes on.

I did not realize that part. That doesn't apply to my situation due to who my employer is but I wonder how many private businesses have chosen to opt out. If a lot are choosing to opt out that would explain why it isn’t a bigger story.

[Jonathan Carone]

I'd rather keep paying now and get a tax credit later than save it now and have to owe it later.

[RubberMallet]

my thing is if you are employed, unless you had hours drastically cut (didn't happen if your employer took ppp loans) or a working household had 1 person laid off, i don't see how it makes much of a difference. I could see it helping a business retain some cash to stay afloat.

[JK37]

I'd rather keep paying now and get a tax credit later than save it now and have to owe it later.

In general, this is the lesser of the two paths. It’s not a credit; it’s more like a loan to the government for a few months. Paying now means the government holds your money for you and gives it back later. What’s the ROI on that? Nil.

[Jonathan Carone]

It’s such a small amount I’m not as concerned about ROI as I am convenience.

[olldflame]

Way more deserving than Obama ever was, but to be truthful, it's actually Cushner and Grinnell who should be nominated.
We'll see if he gets it. I have my doubts, but the word is there are more agreements on the way, so it may end up being hard not to.

[Purple Haize]

He legit should. That deal is the linchpin for things to come and a ginormous accomplishment. Serbia and Kosovo might not seems as big a deal but they are huge in their own right. You’re going to see a free more dominos fall in relation to Israel if Trump is re-elected
Objectively the accomplishment is worthy of the Peace Prize. Put anyone else’s name in front of it they’d be a shoe in. But it’s Trump so....

[rhezick]

Your point keeps changing. It’s gone from “Look at how horrible this article is. I can’t believe the President said this” to “He May not have said it but I can see him saying it” to “He might have said bad things about POWs and Veterans on other occasions and that’s bad”. Which is so far off from the original point of the article to prove the fact it was a hit piece
I am seeing it have the opposite than the desired effect Lots of every day vets are defending Trump. Which was the target of the hit piece. Some Generals etc have jumped on the bash band wagon but that’s not Trumps target audience
I see Trumps attacks against McCain Mattis and others as more personal and directed in nature. I just don’t see those comments as encompassing the entire Military. His actions just don’t back that up.
But we disagree. I can’t help it you are wrong!

My point wasn't changing, I was making multiple points. Didn't realize that wasn't allowed. Either way, we see his comments differently but hey... I'm okay with you being wrong! I kid. Maybe it's wrong. Just seems weird that while yes there are some outlets that narrow the scope of the "scoop" there's others that corroborate it. Oh well.

Changing the subject, I'm curious on the thoughts on Woodward's book. Kind of the opposite of the Atlantic if I'm understanding correctly... all sourced, with audio. I haven't read into it too much (although at this point it seems to be getting old). I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume because it's anti-trump it's communistic propaganda?

[Jonathan Carone]

Woodward’s book will energize those who don’t like Trump and fall on deaf ears to his supporters all while nothing changes.

[thepostman]

Trump's media people have already spun it as him trying to remain positive to the American people so that is how his supporters will view it too.

Woodward sat on this info for months until his book was ready which is pretty appalling if you ask me.

Either way, there is a fine line between fear mongering (which the media loves) and being realistic with the American people. Trump couldn't even be realistic with the American people and purposely downplayed it for poltical reasons.

But at the end of the day the media hasn't stopped being critical of Trump so this will just get lost in the noise.