William Thien

Will Trump’s Association with Icahn Disqualify Him?

Posted on: November 19, 2015

Conservatives have known since Trump’s entry into the presidential race that he is a close confidant of billionaire Carl Icahn.

In a recent Reuters article it was disclosed Icahn has been counseling Trump that comprehensive tax reform is unlikely to pass Congress and that Trump should focus on  economic growth rather than trying to shrink the government.

While stating the obvious may seem like a solution, or focusing on economic growth, shrinking the government is at the forefront of most Republican platforms. None of the GOP candidates believe the country should dismantle infrastructure or the maintenance thereof or downsize the military, what Republican candidates are focusing on and if they are not they should be focusing on it is the massive abuses of social systems and sloppy oversight and maintenance of the social safety net which so many people in the country now use as an avocation, in many cases it is believed, generation after generation, while the middle class suffers under the burden of massive taxation, a burden which the very wealthy such as Carl Icahn and the very poor, escape primarily through the tax code.

Naturally Carl Icahn does not want comprehensive tax reform. He likely benefits substantially from the tax code.

Carl Icahn, like many of the very wealthy, is treated differently by the tax code. Furthermore, many of the very wealthy profit substantially from a business alignment with some form of government social program, rent assistance (real estate moguls profit from it), medical assistance (large medical concerns profit from it), government appropriations (anyone who sells to the government), you name it. That list goes on and on. Naturally people like Icahn do not want to see a downsizing of the government, they are lined up at the government trough at both ends, at the profit source and at tax time. Yet you and I cannot do that.

When Icahn says the government should incentivize business, what he is saying is, hey, we think the government should give business more money. That may not be a bad choice, but we should not forget that the money the government will be giving those businesses is really taxpayer dollars, and maybe it is better if we have a business environment where businesses actually structure themselves in a way where they get off of the backs of taxpayers rather than line up at the front doors to their homes with outstretched hands. The government already does a pretty good job of that and maybe that should be the extent of that behavior, the privy of the government primarily. Allowing corporate American to restructure that behavior would not bode well for the taxpayer. I am pro-business, but there must be ethical considerations when addressing how the public is treated by the tax code in that respect. Corporate America is likely much more efficient at creating revenue streams than the government which is one reason why American business is so effective and thankfully so.

Ultimately Icahn is making a classist statement, though it is not the “rich against the poor,” the “haves against the have nots,” what Icahn’s statement refers to is more of a slight towards the middle classes, those who carry the burden of the country on their backs in the form of taxation and price. Essentially what Icahn is saying is, those stupid bastards can’t figure their way out of the hole we’ve dug for them, so let’s continue to bury to them. Icahn is saying, it’s a no-brainer, Donald.

If Candidate Trump is seeking advice as apparently he does from Icahn, I would advise him at this point to tell Carl Icahn the next time he calls that he is busy right now and he will call him back when he gets a chance and then forget he ever received the called in the first place. At once Trump may still be a viable candidate.

As conservatives, let us then take note that Trump may be in alignment with Icahn as the campaign moves forward.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.


7 Responses to "Will Trump’s Association with Icahn Disqualify Him?"

I contend that the point you make above is true but not worthy of the priority you assign it; rather, it’s a distractionary red herring that msm meme GOP media uses to distract and inflame middle-and-working-class GOP voters.
Remember, as egregious as their abuses are, EBT and other prole social-service abuses are collectively a mere piss in the ocean compared to the graft that comes via the various private and public corporate welfare programs and abuses. Some of these are outright congressional acts, such as the Credit Reformation Act, and some are deployed through pre-existing fed departments and agencies, such as the massive public-private schematics contracted by the Defense dept.
And even if you accept that as true (which one should, because it is), there’s then the fact that corporate America has established plenty of unholy-yet-profitable business alliances with some for these federal social service programs; you detailed a few involving real estate and there exist plenty of others (e.g., consider some of those semis backed-up and unloading at public schools every morning; they’re unloading the gruel for all those subsidized lunches to be served a few hours later —– a scenario that happens tens of thousands of times every m-f morning in America.

Comparing people having sex and getting pregnant in order to get government benefits to corporations and businesses that receive tax breaks is like comparing apples to oranges. Worse.

There is nothing similar there at all. The businesses are for the most part engaging in economic activity which drives the country’s economy and generating revenue and creating jobs. The people having sex out of wedlock to get government benefits are engaging in an act of sex to get those benefits and are a drag on the taxpayer. No comparison there whatsoever. None.

Furthermore, when you say the amount of funds is small compared to the benefits corporations and businesses receive, you are merely talking about the EBT funds only and the myriad other program funds recipients receive. Nobody ever does the math on how much it costs to administer those funds, to pay those people administering those funds in all of those programs and to give them benefits. And then there is the pay for the Social Workers that get attached to those cases. Wow! Now those total benefit funds have doubled or perhaps tripled and the final number probably isn’t even as close to what you think it is. It is more likely multiples of ten or twenty times what you think it is, maybe more. There is no way to actually keep track of it. And it is actually money going out the taxpayer’s front door whereas a tax break for a corporation may if structured properly be generating funds. I understand what you are doing.

But the argument is invalid.

First, I would say it is quantifiable and has been ‘quantified,’ just how much it costs to budget for and then administer all these federal social-service programs.

Second, even after your requested reconsideration, I would still feel confident contending that corporate and other more monied schemes and arrangements in which private capital subcontracts with government-funded business yields way, WAY more profit and tax-paid funding than do such publicly vilified prole-benefit programs such as EBT and SNAP, etc.

Finally, I specifically began by saying that I in no way disagreed with the logic or fact of your contention but only to the level of priority you assigned to said contentions.

Of course corporate contracts and government-funded businesses yield “WAY more profit…” That’s what they are supposed to do. The distinction is that they are generating taxes as well and revenue as well as jobs while the woman sitting at home in front of the television and having sex in order to bear children out-of-wedlock and receive government benefits is a form of “pure drag” on the taxpayer and does not support the economy in any way.

There is a serious, major distinction there. She is at home having fun while others are working and paying for her lifestyle (and working women often receive those benefits as well as over the last several years 40 plus percent and often as much as 50 percent of the children were born to single mothers. Why? Because it pays so well). It’s not just the taxes that go to pay for her sexual promiscuity, it is the insult, the added insult to the working taxpayer. Aside from the taxes themselves, that is an added burden, a serious, added weight to them.

Somehow, though, I don’t think you missed that point.

to answer the question you impose at the start of your essay: No, i don’t think Trump will suffer one bit from his association with Ichan; there’s been no evidence that the electorate is astute or even basically aware enough of such questionable alliances —– which, in fact, abound among ALL the GOP candidates this year.

I think we’re now talking past one another a bit. I’m feeling sorta like I may be missing something; it seems we agree on some basics here, yet i’m less and less clear on what it is at core that we disagree with.

Perhaps some future similar-subject post of yours will clarify our or my misunderstanding here.

No, we are not talking past one another. You have just forgotten the original post and your response to it, that as you suggested the cost of all of the social programs is just a “drop in the bucket” in a manner of speaking compared to corporate benefits.

I say it’s not just a drop in the bucket. We are not just talking about the funds paid to the recipients of all of the social programs, its the tax burden upon the tax payer of those programs and the generational abuses of those programs that is a physical and emotional insult to the taxpayer, making those social programs even more massive than they are and the benefits corporations and businesses receive in the course of doing business much easier to carry regardless of their size.

You were trying to change the subject and I don’t think you have.

We are not talking past one another at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

November 2015
« Oct   Dec »
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: