OT: Mo' Money Mo' Money Mo' Money
Papi_Chulo
Miami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
What comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth is, for a president of the United States, unprecedented.
So is what goes into his wallet.
In their recent financial disclosure forms, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner reported more than $500 million in income.
That income came from their hotels, golf courses, clubs and merchandise sales. It came from long-established businesses and newly formed ones.
No modern president has profited this way during his time in office.
Predecessors like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush put their assets in blind trusts to avoid conflicts between their financial interests and the public interest. Trump did not.
He announced in January 2017 that he would step away from his businesses by putting his sons Donald Jr. and Eric in charge of them. But he stepped away only from their management, not their profits.
As president, Trump has promoted those businesses with his presence relentlessly. During his first 514 days in office, he visited Trump properties on 159 of them.
At least two American embassies abroad have promoted Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club, on their websites. A national park in Virginia has offered Trump wine for sale.
Trump aide Kellyanne Conway publicly urged Americans to buy Ivanka Trump’s products in a television appearance on Fox News. Explaining the popularity of Trump’s Washington hotel, Conway told Politico that customers “look at it as a piece of the president.”
As demand rose, the Trump organization raised prices.
Mar-a-Lago, which Trump calls the “Winter White House,” doubled its membership fee to $200,000. Trump International Hotel, whose managers market it as a destination for diplomats, raised room rates almost 60 percent.
Many who could benefit from Trump’s decisions are happy to pay. That includes representatives of countries of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Georgia. It includes lobbyists and executives from industries such as oil, high-tech, real estate and mining.
In amounts large and small, Trump takes in money from political allies, and from the government he leads.
The Republican National Committee rents space in Trump Tower. So does the Pentagon. So does China’s largest bank.
The government of Qatar this spring paid $6.5 million for an apartment in Trump World Tower — joining the governments of Saudi Arabia, India and Afghanistan there.
Trump businesses overseas have gotten foreign government help, too.
China’s government is reportedly lending $500 million for a Trump-linked development project in Indonesia. China has also approved dozens of trademarks for Trump family businesses since he won the presidency.
The White House notes that Congress has exempted presidents from conflict-of-interest statutes. But his ability to profit is not unlimited.
In two “emoluments clauses,” the Constitution forbids the president from taking money from individual states or from foreign governments.
Responding to those restrictions, the Trump organization has pledged to donate profits derived from foreign entities to the U.S. Treasury. In 2017, that donation was $151,000 — less than one-half of 1 percent of the $40 million in hotel income the president reported.
A federal lawsuit filed by Democratic members of Congress and one filed by the governments of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia accuse the president of violating the emoluments clauses.
While those cases await trial, the power of the presidency remains a major financial asset for Trump.
“The stars have all aligned,” Eric Trump said last year. “I think our brand is hotter than it’s ever been.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-co…
So is what goes into his wallet.
In their recent financial disclosure forms, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner reported more than $500 million in income.
That income came from their hotels, golf courses, clubs and merchandise sales. It came from long-established businesses and newly formed ones.
No modern president has profited this way during his time in office.
Predecessors like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush put their assets in blind trusts to avoid conflicts between their financial interests and the public interest. Trump did not.
He announced in January 2017 that he would step away from his businesses by putting his sons Donald Jr. and Eric in charge of them. But he stepped away only from their management, not their profits.
As president, Trump has promoted those businesses with his presence relentlessly. During his first 514 days in office, he visited Trump properties on 159 of them.
At least two American embassies abroad have promoted Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club, on their websites. A national park in Virginia has offered Trump wine for sale.
Trump aide Kellyanne Conway publicly urged Americans to buy Ivanka Trump’s products in a television appearance on Fox News. Explaining the popularity of Trump’s Washington hotel, Conway told Politico that customers “look at it as a piece of the president.”
As demand rose, the Trump organization raised prices.
Mar-a-Lago, which Trump calls the “Winter White House,” doubled its membership fee to $200,000. Trump International Hotel, whose managers market it as a destination for diplomats, raised room rates almost 60 percent.
Many who could benefit from Trump’s decisions are happy to pay. That includes representatives of countries of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Georgia. It includes lobbyists and executives from industries such as oil, high-tech, real estate and mining.
In amounts large and small, Trump takes in money from political allies, and from the government he leads.
The Republican National Committee rents space in Trump Tower. So does the Pentagon. So does China’s largest bank.
The government of Qatar this spring paid $6.5 million for an apartment in Trump World Tower — joining the governments of Saudi Arabia, India and Afghanistan there.
Trump businesses overseas have gotten foreign government help, too.
China’s government is reportedly lending $500 million for a Trump-linked development project in Indonesia. China has also approved dozens of trademarks for Trump family businesses since he won the presidency.
The White House notes that Congress has exempted presidents from conflict-of-interest statutes. But his ability to profit is not unlimited.
In two “emoluments clauses,” the Constitution forbids the president from taking money from individual states or from foreign governments.
Responding to those restrictions, the Trump organization has pledged to donate profits derived from foreign entities to the U.S. Treasury. In 2017, that donation was $151,000 — less than one-half of 1 percent of the $40 million in hotel income the president reported.
A federal lawsuit filed by Democratic members of Congress and one filed by the governments of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia accuse the president of violating the emoluments clauses.
While those cases await trial, the power of the presidency remains a major financial asset for Trump.
“The stars have all aligned,” Eric Trump said last year. “I think our brand is hotter than it’s ever been.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/28/trump-co…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
29 comments
(i barely voted for the donald.)
THERE IS NO CLINTON IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
DUMBASS!
Fact - Trump isn't a homo like Obama
Fact - All you old faggot hippy liberals are dying off, and us younger capitalist conservatives are going to run this country for the next 50 years.
Fact - no way ruth bader ginsburg lives to be 90, so Trump will get another appointment supreme court pick before the end of his second term
Fact - your hatred for Trump and my facts are making you explode with anger and gayness
Fact - suck a cock fags!
Besides, we've had presidents tainted by corruption in the past, and the world didn't come to an end. Ulysses Grant, Warren Harding, and Bill Clinton all come to mind.
Anyway, yes, he has personal qualities that make him unusual as a president. But policy matters more to me... and his policies are really nothing new. It's a typical mix of the same-old-same-old postwar mishmash. Policy-wise, the only thing that's even remotely unique about Trump is his stance on trade and international cooperation, which is closer to what you would expect from a pre-WW2 Republican.
If the Trump’s goal was to maximize his income, he would do what Jeff Bezos, George Soros, and dozens of other lefties do. Buy off politicians and maximize their investments. Instead Trump turned the management over to Eric and Don Jr, who have no role in government.
You can put stocks in a blind trust, but that doesn’t work with real estate.
This time around, the elephant was a closer match than the donkey.
The arc of history is long, it zigs and zags over the short term, but have no fear stand up for what’s right, that arc is always for progress despite setbacks that occur from time to time.
I suspect you're very wrong about this.
As I've said before, not all "conservative" judges are exactly the same. If Trump nominates another judge like Gorsuch then yes, we can expect the court to continue to fight the Executive Branch agencies. But not if he nominates someone similar to Antonin Scalia, who often deferred to the other branches of government. Read this for context:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/29/ted-cr…
@Burlington: "I suspect you're very wrong about this."
================
You know, @Burlington, I've worked on government and commercial contracts and government contracts are always full of waste. It's best to let the free-market sort things out when you can. So there may some small amount of Libertarian blood in my system.
OTOH, replacing a brilliant fed chair with a basket of commodities seems downright nutty.
But I have a more personal question: we're probably going back to the days where health insurance companies will be allowed to charge more -- or deny insurance --based on pre-existing conditions. What would you do if you personally found yourself out of work with cancer or heart disease, unable to get health insurance? Getting sick is the single biggest cause of bankruptcy? Wouldn't you rather have a society where sick and healthy people pay into the same system? Or is dropping dead just another part of your Libertarian purity?
There are 50M or so Americans who will be affected if we go back to the old days of pre-existing conditions. Also, with our unpaid-for tax cut, the GOP will soon be going after Medicare to balance the budget. I wonder how all the aging dudes on TUSCL will like that?
My guess is that an event or series of events on the magnitude of 9/11 or a Pearl Harbor attack will occur again, and this country will pull itself together despite the petty bunch of leaders that currently are driving the national debate.
I assume the brilliant Fed chair you're referring to is Ben Bernanke, right? So how about the idea of replacing one libertarian Fed Chair with another libertarian Fed Chair? Because that's basically what Bush did in 2006. Read for yourself: http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/17/be…
In fairness, my objection to Bernanke isn't really his philosophy - I would probably agree with him on everything except for whether or not the Fed should exist. My objection is to the institution itself. Would you be comfortable with the Government setting the price of products in the market? Do you like the idea of a centrally planned economy? Because if not, then I'm not sure why you're so comfortable with the Government setting the price of money.
"we're probably going back to the days where health insurance companies will be allowed to charge more"
Not much more. They'll never allow prices to really flow freely. They've merely widened the bands somewhat. I would prefer people to be exposed to the real cost of all their individual needs and wants. That's the only way that we can impose some discipline on this market. But it's not gonna happen.
"or deny insurance --based on pre-existing conditions."
If that happens, it will merely be a temporary negotiating tactic. I'm very skeptical. The pre-existing conditions provision is one of the most popular parts of the ACA. So if they take it away, they would have to replace it with something nearly identical and quickly, or else pay the political price.
I've been saying for years that ObamaCare is merely a stalking horse for single-payer healthcare, because of several characteristics: 1) the Medicaid expansion, 2) the employer mandate, and 3) the steeply progressive nature of the subsidies for people who buy from the exchange. Taken as a whole, it seems almost designed to fail. The market-based components will inevitably be the least popular, while the socialized components will be the most popular.
As it stands, it's just waiting for a left-wing president and a left-wing Congress to come along and turn it into universal socialized medicine. And I believe Donald Trump IS that left-wing president. All he needs is for his old buddy Chuck Schumer to take over the Senate in November. Watch and see. Tell me if I'm wrong in a few years.
"What would you do if you personally found yourself out of work with cancer or heart disease, unable to get health insurance?"
I was out of work in 2014 and I bought health insurance from the Federal exchange. Also, I do have at least one pre-existing condition: I have gout. I've had it since I'm a teenager, but it wasn't diagnosed until I was in my early thirties. Thankfully there's almost no cancer in my family. But, much like Paul Ryan's family, half of the men in my family drop dead from heart attacks. It is what it is.
I would prefer a system in which health insurance only pays for catastrophic events, such as heart attacks and strokes, while forcing me to pay for my own gout treatments in cash. Less insurance, less Medicare, more cash payments. I would also prefer a system that allows generic drug competition very quickly, and allows people to purchase medications without a prescription. The price of paying for my condition would plummet. But we don't live in that world and we never will.
"Or is dropping dead just another part of your Libertarian purity?"
I'm not a purist. I don't even think there is such a thing as a libertarian purist. You're probably thinking of anarchists who believe in no government whatsoever. I wouldn't privatize the military or the courts, for example. I support voter ID laws. I think we should have some basic border security, and we should perform routine background checks for immigrants. I think divorced parents should be forced to pay child support. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the government to set an age of maturity for alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and drug use, and for sex. I even believe the government should force children to be vaccinated. (Ideally, they should amend the constitution to allow for some of these things.)
But in general, I think government should be limited. Considering that's the philosophy upon which America was founded, it doesn't seem so radical to me.
I probably should also mention that I support clean air and clean water laws. Pollution is bad (although I don't think carbon should count as pollution). So add that to the list.
Obamacare was a huge step backward, not progress.
LOL. That's funny. Was there anything in particular that you object to?
It was better when state governments ran risk pools... but it was still very bad. And we still had the huge problem of insurance coverage being tied to employment. So taking away the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored coverage would be a better solution, imo.