Trump donates first-quarter salary to National Park Service

a reply to: vjr1113

Michelle Obama’s February 2016 ski trip to Aspen with her daughters cost taxpayers a total of $222,875.58. The Secret Service expenses were $165,806.78. Judicial Watch previously obtained records from the Air Force revealing that Michelle Obama’s weekend trip to Aspen, Colorado, last year cost American taxpayers $57,068.80 in travel expenses alone for the 7.4-hour round-trip flight.

Source: www.truthrevolt.org...

Ah, well, I can't really get too upset over this one... I guess I should thank you for proving me correct again. When I watched Sean Spicer announce the check, I immediately told my wife, "somebody's going to complain about that."

Sure enough...

...and folks keep wondering why nothing sticks to Trump...

TheRedneck

Good for Trump. Maybe the National Park Service can start a missing persons database with some of that money now.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
a reply to: spacedoubt

In my OP, I mentioned that the topic of his salary has been written about in other posts. What those posts said was that he has to take a salary whether he likes it or not. So, short of no salary, he's giving it to a government agency that we have to fund otherwise. I'm satisfied that he accomplished what he set out in the campaign. Bottom line is, the government saves money.

Got it, thats cool then. It's not his fault that he could not keep his promise.

Not really grasping at anything.
And I'm certainly no tax expert. It just appears that he made a big statement for the sake of impact.
Which we all know is his M.O.

He didn't know the history of previous presidents had to go with the "accept the money and donate it" option.
Working for a dollar sounds so much cooler.

Where do I nominate him for sainthood?

a reply to: spacedoubt

Why must it be a choice between sainthood and the Devil incarnate?

Is it not possible to just admit that Trump kept his promise, to the best of his ability, this one time?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

simple.
Because he made a promise he couldn't keep, due to lack of knowledge of those who tried before him.

Spicer also said this last month.

“He kindly asked that you all help determine where that goes,” Mr. Spicer said last month. “The way that we can avoid scrutiny is let the press corps determine where it should go.”

not sure what happened to that plan.


I will admit that he did the next best thing though.
They're going to need every penny I think, with his budget proposal of a 12 percent cut to the Department of Interior.

a reply to: spacedoubt

Because he made a promise he couldn't keep, due to lack of knowledge of those who tried before him.

He did?

Does he have the money in his possession? Or does the Federal government? Why does it matter that a couple pieces of legal paperwork were required? His goal was accomplished: he refused his salary by remitting it back to the payee.

As far as profiting from charity, I don't think the US Department of the Interior is a recognized tax-deductible charity. Even if it is, there's a limit to tax-deductible charitable contributions, and I'm pretty sure it's less than 100%. So by routing the funds to Trump and back again, he will still be liable to pay taxes on the money earned. Had he simply been able to stop the government from writing the check, he would not be liable for taxes. He actually will lose money after taxes this way, instead of breaking even.

not sure what happened to that plan.

I think it had something to do with the 'press' deciding they wanted to go in the direction of fantasy land, where they could make wild claims that magically came true. "You choose the direction" doesn't make much sense when the desired direction is off the face of a cliff.

I will admit that he did the next best thing though.

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

Don't worry; there will be plenty of good reasons to criticize him before 8 years are up.

They're going to need every penny I think, with his budget proposal of a 12 percent cut to the Department of Interior.

Personally, I think we could cut every single department by 12% or more without losing a single iota of service, if we could streamline them. Trust me; I have used government restrooms. My $19.99 Walmart toilet seat sits just as good as their $500 ones... better IMO.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: spacedoubt
Well, that's somewhat close to his actual promise of not taking a salary at all. OR a 1 dollar salary if required.
But it's not what he promised.
Ding! he gets the deduction though.

It's illegal to not take the salary. He is fulfilling the full intent of the promise he made.

a reply to: TheRedneck

12 percent is harsh for some departments that are already underfunded. Some are overfunded too.
MY real point is that he got the soundbite out there, which played well to some demographics. Even better than I will take the money then return it. It's a technicality IMO.

And yes, I agree there will be plenty more to be aggravated about. I cross my fingers that he won't do something extremely stupid based on his vanity and narcissism.

a reply to: spacedoubt

12 percent is harsh for some departments that are already underfunded. Some are overfunded too.

'Underfunded' is a relative term, relative specifically to the tasks that are to be performed. As long as there is unlimited funding without accountability, any department will expand to take on as many duties as possible. If funding becomes limited, a department will be forced to prioritize duties... a good thing IMO if one wishes to stimulate the private economy and decrease governmental overreach.

So what specifically are the duties of the Department of the Interior? That's a question that needs to be asked of every single department in existence. Without understanding exactly what those duties are, 'underfunded' has no real meaning.

MY real point is that he got the soundbite out there, which played well to some demographics. Even better than I will take the money then return it. It's a technicality IMO.

Forgive me, but that is a ludicrous accusation. Who doesn't try to project themselves in the best light possible? Who walks into an interview with a resume full of reasons not to hire them? Who dresses down and makes sure to accent every minor error to get that raise? When was there ever a commercial that went to length to show the downside of the product being advertised?

YES! TRUMP TRIED TO SHOW HIMSELF IN A GOOD LIGHT, just like every American... no, every person across the globe... does every day.

TheRedneck