Mediaboss Marketing

Trump was asked by the AP's Julie Pace whether or not he would veto a spending bill that kept the government open but didn't include the $1.4 billion he has requested as a sort of down payment on his much-promised border wall. Here's how Trump answered:

"I don't know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it you've been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it's funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I've always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college but it's a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it."

Border wall --- base likes ---- base is big ---- Democrats have an edge in electoral college --- it's a big edge ---- I thought I would win the popular vote ---- I won the electoral college ---- My base wants to see the wall.

So, well, um ok.

Later in the interview, Pace asks whether Trump thinks he has the right team in place for his next 100 days in office. Trump praises his military team. Pace follows up about his White House staff. Here's how Trump responds: "Yeah, my White House team. I think Reince (Priebus) has been doing an excellent job. I think that, you know, this is a very tough environment not caused necessarily by me. Although the election has, you know, look, the Democrats had a tremendous opportunity because the electoral college, as I said, is so skewed to them. You start off by losing in New York and California, no matter who it is. If, if Abe Lincoln came back to life, he would lose New York and he would lose California. It's just the registration, there's nothing you can do. So you're losing the two biggest states, that's where you start. OK. The Electoral College is so skewed in favor of a Democrat that it's very, very hard.....so she had this massive advantage, she spent hundreds of millions of dollars more money than I spent. Hundreds of millions ... Yeah. Or more, actually because we were $375 she was at $2.2 billion. But whatever. She spent massive amounts of money more and she lost. Solidly lost, because you know it wasn't 270, it was 306."

And here's how Trump's mind worked on that answer:

Reince Priebus is doing a good job --- the political environment is difficult but it's not my fault --- Democrats should have won ---- New York and California are very Democratic states ---- Abe Lincoln --- Electoral college favors Democrats --- Clinton should have won -- I got outspent --- I won ---- I won by more than people thought.

Neither of Pace's questions come anywhere close to mentioning the election. In fact, both are forward looking; one touches on the expectation of a bill to fund the government emerging before the deadline Friday night while the other is about Trump's second 100 days.

And yet, Trump found a way to bring both answers back to his victory in 2016 through a series of seeming non sequiturs. (I say "seeming" because clearly the logic hops made sense to Trump if not to me.)

At one level, Trump's desire to keep returning to the election makes sense. It was his greatest glory, his definitive proof point that all the people who mocked or laughed at him over the years were wrong and that he was right. No one thought he could win. And he won. We all like to revel in our past successes to some degree.

"Back in '82 I used to be able to throw a pigskin a quarter mile," Uncle Rico recalls. "If coach would have put me in fourth quarter we would have been state champions....no doubt in my mind."

The point is: Dwelling too much in the past makes you a prisoner of the past. Trump won a historic upset. No question. But, now he's president. So, how he got elected -- and how no one called it -- is now less relevant than what he plans to do in the office.

Congressional Republicans are desperate for something more than just rhetoric and 50,000 foot policy statements. They want real guidance about specific policy proposals Trump favors and a a blueprint for how to get them passed.

Instead, Trump just keeps reliving past glories.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump can't stop talking (and talking) about the 2016 election - CNN

Donald Trump, accompanied by his daughter Ivanka Trump, talk via video conference with International Space Station Commander Peggy Whitson in Washington, D.C., on April 24, 2017.Susan WalshAP

President Donald Trump joked with astronaut Peggy Whitson about her having to convert urine into a drinkable solution during a special call from the Oval Office on Monday.

Better you than me," he told Whitson, who as of Monday had officially clocked more time in space than any other American astronaut. President Trump, along with his daughter Ivanka Trump and astronaut Kate Rubins, called Whitson to congratulate her on setting an "incredible record." He also said how proud he was of the work she and other astronauts do on the International Space Station . The conversation was broadcast live to schools and museums across the United States.

The group also chatted about the work astronauts do in space, a typical day in the life of an astronaut on the space station, and the U.S.'s goal of sending humans to Mars . While Whitson told Trump she is "absolutely ready to go to Mars," she noted that the U.S. will likely not be ready to actually send humans to the red planet until around 2030.

"The real steps are going to be taken in a few years, so by studying math, science, engineering, and any type of technology youre going to have a part in that," Whiston told the young people tuning in.

President Trump had joked that he'd like to get astronauts to Mars by the end of his first term. "But, if not, in my second," he said.

Read this article:
President Trump Jokes With Astronaut Peggy Whitson on Oval Office Call - TIME

MSNBC

The select few who have Donald Trump's ear MSNBC Politico reported over the weekend that Donald Trump likes to leave large blocks of private time on his presidential schedule, which are regularly devoted to spontaneous meetings and phone chats with ex-aides, friends, media figures, lawmakers and ... Trump's Big Week: 100-Day Countdown, New Life for Health Care Bill and a Looming ShutdownTIME Congress Aims to Avoid Shutdown as Trump Presses for 100-Day WinsNBCNews.com Donald Trump is obsessed with winning, and that's why he's losingVox CNBC -Wall Street Journal (subscription) -Telegraph.co.uk -The Hill all 773 news articles »

Read the original:
The select few who have Donald Trump's ear - MSNBC

President Donald Trump was elected in part because of his championing of income tax reform, with promises of a simplified structure of tax rates for individuals and lower tax rates on corporations. Yet at no time during the campaign did the president signal that the way his administration would pay for those moves would involve taking away one of the most popular and widely used tax breaks in the income tax system. Now, though, lawmakers are reportedly looking at removing the upfront tax deduction for traditional 401(k) contributions, and some proposals have even suggested taking away part of the tax deferral that 401(k) plans provide. With most Americans already saving an inadequate amount toward their retirement, changes to the rules would only take away a key incentive for setting money aside for the future and punish those who prudently plan for their retirement.

One big problem involved in corporate tax reform is that it would be costly. Cutting tax rates from 35% to 15% would result in a drop in revenue, and many lawmakers want to ensure that any tax reform legislation is revenue-neutral. To achieve that, Congress would have to couple tax cuts with ways of raising revenue.

Image source: Getty Images.

One of the largest tax benefits Americans get comes from the exclusion from income of money that they save in 401(k) plans. According to the latest report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of contributions to and earnings of defined contribution plans cost the federal government more than $90 billion in potential tax revenue in 2016. Estimates have that number rising to $146 billion by 2020, and the total over the five-year period from 2016 to 2020 is almost $584 billion.

The key proposal Congress is reportedly looking at treats all 401(k) contributions as if they were Roth contributions. That would take away upfront tax benefits in exchange for making earnings and appreciation tax-free going forward. By doing so, the federal government believes it could raise $1.5 trillion in additional tax revenue over the next decade, providing an ample source of funding for tax cuts elsewhere.

An even bigger threat could come from measures to change the tax-deferred nature of 401(k)s. Right now, any income and gains your 401(k) generates don't get taxed until you make withdrawals. But one proposal would impose a 15% tax on annual gains within 401(k) plans. For long-term stock investors, that could put 401(k) plans at a disadvantage to simple taxable accounts, where one can defer capital gains tax simply by not selling shares. Proponents of the measure suggest that the move would raise between $48 billion and $60 billion in annual tax revenue between 2018 and 2025.

After all the talk of tax cuts during the campaign, it seems like a complete about-face to be talking about tax increases. However, the justification some lawmakers have come up with involves the potential impact on investment values that could come from corporate tax reform. As the argument goes, if taxes on corporate income go down, then there would be an immediate increase in after-tax earnings, which in turn should produce a rise in share prices. For the government to impose a tax on that share-price increase is, in effect, a way to balance out the tax-created bump.

Image source: Getty Images.

However, the fact that Republican lawmakers are even contemplating such measures comes as a shock to those who have followed the political pendulum swing over time. For years, it has been Democrats who have looked at 401(k)s as a source of tax inequity, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested reducing the value of tax deductions for high-income earners on their 401(k) contributions. Budgets from former President Barack Obama included provisions that would have limited 401(k) savings for the wealthy, and some policymakers have even suggested that 401(k)s should be abolished entirely. In that light, for attacks on 401(k)s to come from the other side of the aisle shows how the world in Washington has once again turned upside down.

Still, the key question is how much of President Trump's base of loyal supporters truly cares about 401(k) tax breaks. For those who face unemployment and economic hardship, huge deductions for retirement savings are just one more sign of how income inequality can compound because of tax policy. If you have modest incomes and pay low tax rates, then a Roth-style 401(k) is often a better option over the long run -- as long as Roth accounts remain truly tax-free and don't also end up on the chopping block in Congress' search for revenue.

You can expect more details on President Trump's tax plan this week, but it's not too soon to let your lawmakers know that 401(k) deductions are an important component of your retirement savings strategy. Changing the rules on retirement savers when it's too late for them to adjust accordingly is unfair, no matter which side of the aisle is behind such a measure, and urging lawmakers to respect past planning is essential in order to keep America's retirement savings problem from getting even worse.

The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Excerpt from:
Is Donald Trump About to Take Away Your 401(k)'s Biggest Tax Break? - Motley Fool

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

How an Alternative Donald Trump Opening Act Might Have Unfolded Wall Street Journal (subscription) Specifically, let's imagine a presidency that attempted from the outset to take advantage of the fact that Donald Trump isn't an ideological conservative or a traditional Republican, but rather a radical centrist who should be able to create ...

See the original post here:
How an Alternative Donald Trump Opening Act Might Have Unfolded - Wall Street Journal (subscription)