(04-05-2019 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

(04-05-2019 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

(04-05-2019 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  It would be great if all politicians had a real working job prior to serving their country. Seems pretty rare at the highest levels. I certainly wouldn't put Donald Trump in that category. GWB? Maybe? Hard to make that call with Daddy pulling the strings for him. GB41? Probably the most recent president that had a "real working job"?

Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

What if he turned $400M into $600M in 50 years? Still deserving of much credit? I'm not saying those are the numbers. I'm not saying that those aren't the numbers. Nobody really knows what the numbers are. IMO, we probably shouldn't take Trump's word for it.

Oh, c'mon, Mar-A-Lago alone is more than that. But using your example, he should be credited for increasing his stake 50% and for being a multi-millionaire.

I guess if you just really, really, want to, you could say he inherited 50 billion and is now broke. Not saying those are the numbers, but they would achieve your apparent goal of claiming he didn't ever make any money.

We don't know exactly how much he started with, and we don't know exactly what his worth is now. But we do know NOW is a lot more than THEN and nobody gave the difference to him.

Hey, take it easy. he can be a good businessman and an SOB at the same time. Nobody is saying making a ton of money makes him a good man. But give credit where credit is due.

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

(04-05-2019 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, Trump took a small inheritance and worked it into a giant fortune. He had a job and performed it well. You don't get a 13,000% increase by luck.

There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

What if he turned $400M into $600M in 50 years? Still deserving of much credit? I'm not saying those are the numbers. I'm not saying that those aren't the numbers. Nobody really knows what the numbers are. IMO, we probably shouldn't take Trump's word for it.

Taking the worst possible starting point I have found (60 million in loans from his father, potentially never repaid), and the Forbes estimate in 2017 of 3.1 billion ----

I would say he has done fairly well in increasing that net worth.

Considering he was probably only worth about a net $5 million in 1982, again, he has done far better than an 'avg' rate of return.

So kudos to him for what he has done in that respect. Not 'jaw dropping' inspiring, but pretty healthy nonetheless.

If there were any loans outstanding when his father died, those were assets of his father's and part of his dad's estate. Cancellation of the loans would have been an offset to the total inheritance.

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The corollary is with fewer funds for paychecks, there are by definition fewer paycheck cashers.

And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

Doesn't matter. That is why I hate talking taxes with paycheck cashers.

(04-05-2019 04:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And Democrats think the tax the rich, anti-business approach helps the working class.

Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

Doesn't matter. That is why I hate talking taxes with paycheck cashers.

That doesn’t make any sense...

(04-05-2019 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Are you talking about taxing income and its affect on the number of jobs? Or taxing businesses and how that affects the number of jobs?

I don't believe there is any empirical evidence (IMO, the most important kind of evidence when talking macro economics) showing that income tax rates are correlated to economic growth.

Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

Doesn't matter. That is why I hate talking taxes with paycheck cashers.

That doesn’t make any sense...

Not to you. My point exactly.

You think it matters. It doesn't.

Rich people have a motive to increase their wealth. They just don't leave money lying around.

One good way to make more money is for the rich guy to invest his extra cash in currently operating businesses or to start new ones. Either way, the extra money in the businesses leads to more employment.

Money in the economy is fungible. It doesn't matter if it comes from a reduction in property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes. The more left in the hands of the people, the more will be invested. Hardly any ends up in coffee cans in the backyards of mansions. It seeks its best use, and usually that use leads back to somebody's employment.

So it doesn't matter is the tax reduction is for Teresa Heinz Kerry or Heinz 57 Inc. It will end up invested.

(04-05-2019 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

Doesn't matter. That is why I hate talking taxes with paycheck cashers.

That doesn’t make any sense...

Not to you. My point exactly.

You think it matters. It doesn't.

Rich people have a motive to increase their wealth. They just don't leave money lying around.

One good way to make more money is for the rich guy to invest his extra cash in currently operating businesses or to start new ones. Either way, the extra money in the businesses leads to more employment.

Money in the economy is fungible. It doesn't matter if it comes from a reduction in property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes. The more left in the hands of the people, the more will be invested. Hardly any ends up in coffee cans in the backyards of mansions. It seeks its best use, and usually that use leads back to somebody's employment.

So it doesn't matter is the tax reduction is for Teresa Heinz Kerry or Heinz 57 Inc. It will end up invested.

It makes no sense for a rich guy to invest his extra cas in his currently operating business. It makes way more sense for his company to pay him less and invest that money in the business so it isn’t taxed twice...

Edit: misread your comment. Thought you said his businesses, not just general businesses.

Further edit - it does matter where the extra money in the economy comes from, because it isn’t distributed with equal efficiency.

(04-05-2019 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, read the part Tanq wrote. It doesn't matter is the paycheck signers are sole proprietors, partners, or corporations, the more the government takes, the less there is available to write paychecks with, i. e., less jobs.

Of course for guys like you and me, it doesn't matter, since we are not paycheck signers anyway. For me and you, any tax reduction just increases disposable income. What Obama would call stimulus? Maybe I could use my stimulus, er, tax cut, to pay somebody to mow my yard. That would be good for the economy, no? (times 100,000,000, that is)

Tanq seemed to be talking about corporate taxes (fewer funds for paychecks) but you reference taxing the rich, which sounds like a income tax. Was asking for you to clarify since those didn’t appear to be statements referencing the same type of tax.

Doesn't matter. That is why I hate talking taxes with paycheck cashers.

That doesn’t make any sense...

Not to you. My point exactly.

You think it matters. It doesn't.

Rich people have a motive to increase their wealth. They just don't leave money lying around.

One good way to make more money is for the rich guy to invest his extra cash in currently operating businesses or to start new ones. Either way, the extra money in the businesses leads to more employment.

Money in the economy is fungible. It doesn't matter if it comes from a reduction in property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, corporate taxes, income taxes. The more left in the hands of the people, the more will be invested. Hardly any ends up in coffee cans in the backyards of mansions. It seeks its best use, and usually that use leads back to somebody's employment.

So it doesn't matter is the tax reduction is for Teresa Heinz Kerry or Heinz 57 Inc. It will end up invested.

It will end up either invested or spent. And spending equates directly to more potential investment from the perspective of the 'flow-to'.

My comment pertains to the pool of available capital en toto -- not just corporations.

Taxes detract explicitly from investment capital from the check writers overall viewpoint.

Taxes on individuals can be on check cashers, or check writers.

Taxes on check cashers detract from their pool of 'excess' capital as well. And from them either 'saving' (capital investment -- banks, funds, stocks, etc) is diminished (in all cases here that is less capital for investment directly), or spending (cars, houses, pools, Christmas gifts, dining out) is diminished.

If spending is diminished, then the investment that can be obtained from each of those spending spigots (car dealership, home builder, toy store, restaurant owner) is thus then diminished.

My comment is very generic. Extraordinarily so, in fact.

Taxes directly compete with investment for monies. Not only that, taxes slow down the velocity of money, further making any amount of taxes a diminishing return on the economy as compared with a that same amount in the normal flow.

(04-05-2019 05:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It makes no sense for a rich guy to invest his extra cas in his currently operating business. It makes way more sense for his company to pay him less and invest that money in the business so it isn’t taxed twice...

I guess it depends on your definition of "Rich". My neighbor, who is worth about 50,000,000 would definitely reinvest extra cash in his business as he wants it to grow, get larger, and make him even more money. That's how he got to be worth $50M. True, i would not expect the Ford family to buy more shares in Ford. But they will put the money to use. Maybe buy 1,000 acres of Iowa farmland, buy $200K of tractors and equipment, hire a half dozen men, and raise corn to take advantage of the corn subsidy for ethanol.

And that farmer who sold the land,, I wonder what he will do with the money. Maybe open that Mexican restaurant he has been been dreaming of for 30 years.


Of course, if the money that would have gone into this is locked up in Washington, none of this will happen.

(04-05-2019 04:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 03:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2019 01:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  There are those that would take issues with your numbers. And your reference to "small inheritance". He seemingly has made every effort to downplay/cover-up just how much he inherited however most believe it was yugely more than the $1M that he likes to tout as part of his "self-made-man" story.

Some will go to any length to deny him any credit for building his fortune. They act as though any old doofus who inherits a million will become a multi-billionaire just by sitting back and sipping wine. More of them end up broke than super-rich.

If you start with X and end with Y, I think you should get credit for Y-X.

Now if he actually started with 10M and is only worth 5B, what percentage of increase is that?

He has done much better with what he had to work with than any Kennedy since Joe, Sr., any Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry. He is not the nicest person, but it is a hell of a lot easier to blow a million (or 10 million) than it is build it into 13 Billion (or 5 billion).

What if he turned $400M into $600M in 50 years? Still deserving of much credit? I'm not saying those are the numbers. I'm not saying that those aren't the numbers. Nobody really knows what the numbers are. IMO, we probably shouldn't take Trump's word for it.

Taking the worst possible starting point I have found (60 million in loans from his father, potentially never repaid), and the Forbes estimate in 2017 of 3.1 billion ----

I would say he has done fairly well in increasing that net worth.

Considering he was probably only worth about a net $5 million in 1982, again, he has done far better than an 'avg' rate of return.

So kudos to him for what he has done in that respect. Not 'jaw dropping' inspiring, but pretty healthy nonetheless.

If there were any loans outstanding when his father died, those were assets of his father's and part of his dad's estate. Cancellation of the loans would have been an offset to the total inheritance.

having money...

...inherited or earned, does not mean making it grow is easy or inevitable.

(04-06-2019 09:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  having money...

...inherited or earned, does not mean making it grow is easy or inevitable.

Which reminds me of this old saw:
Q: How do you make a small fortune?
A: Start with a large fortune...

I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?

Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.

Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

(04-06-2019 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?

Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.

Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbfcL

(04-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?
Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.
Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

I know and you know. Nothing, But they have no clue.

(04-07-2019 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?
Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.
Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

I know and you know. Nothing, But they have no clue.

They don't need a clue. They are just following the lead of the cheerleaders, who also have no clue.

(04-07-2019 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?
Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.
Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

I know and you know. Nothing, But they have no clue.

They don't need a clue. They are just following the lead of the cheerleaders, who also have no clue.

It would be nice to have a clear picture as to potential conflicts of interest of our chief executive both on a domestic and international level. Especially as this chief executive has broken with tradition by not insulating himself from his businesses.

Seems like the issue of conflicts of interest has been determined to be of no importance to Trump supporters.

(04-07-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2019 02:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am curious what the Dems think they will find from Trump's tax returns. More specifically, what are they looking for?
Seems like just a fishing expedition. Something to keep the base riled up.
Since the guys who post here now and then(Lad, FBO, JAAO, At Ease, Rice93, et al) from the left are part of the base, tell me - what are you looking for and where do you expect to find it?

That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

I know and you know. Nothing, But they have no clue.

They don't need a clue. They are just following the lead of the cheerleaders, who also have no clue.

It would be nice to have a clear picture as to potential conflicts of interest of our chief executive both on a domestic and international level. Especially as this chief executive has broken with tradition by not insulating himself from his businesses.
Seems like the issue of conflicts of interest has been determined to be of no importance to Trump supporters.

But tax returns won't tell you that.

(04-07-2019 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That's what I thought. Y'all have no idea.

I know and you know. Nothing, But they have no clue.

They don't need a clue. They are just following the lead of the cheerleaders, who also have no clue.

It would be nice to have a clear picture as to potential conflicts of interest of our chief executive both on a domestic and international level. Especially as this chief executive has broken with tradition by not insulating himself from his businesses.
Seems like the issue of conflicts of interest has been determined to be of no importance to Trump supporters.

But tax returns won't tell you that.

Fie on your "logic"!