Trump CRUMBLES in disaster Q&A

[Jrinne]

@marco

Now if we could just have robot doctors to fix the real problem in USA: healthcare.

Marco,

That may be happening faster than you think.

For better or worse, much of your healthcare is already being guided by AI:

Lawsuit claims Humana uses AI to deny necessary health care services to Medicare Advantage patients

As an ophthalmologist, I can confirm: I’m already being replaced. Many primary care practices now use in-office AI to screen for diabetic retinopathy—often skipping referral to a specialist entirely.

Revolutionizing Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Integrating AI-Based Retinal Imaging in Primary Care

But how well does AI perform clinically?

• ChatGPT With GPT-4 Outperforms Emergency Department Physicians in Diagnostic Accuracy
• New AI Tool Outperforms Most Human Physicians on U.S. Medical Licensing Examination
• Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning

“The LLM alone demonstrated higher performance than both physician groups, indicating the need for technology and workforce development to realize the potential of physician–artificial intelligence collaboration in clinical practice.”

Anecdotally, ChatGPT passed my CME questions last year—flawlessly.

And it’s not just diagnostics. Prior authorizations for procedures and medications are already fully automated. If you appeal, you talk to a human —someone at a call center, likely just clicking through a decision tree. That person, and the doctor calling them (me), are both increasingly redundant. The system remains. The AI is coming.

You suggested removing the human might be an improvement—and I agree. Frankly, these humans aren’t making real decisions anyway. Eliminating them could reduce friction and healthcare costs. Either way, it’s no longer hypothetical. It’s already happening.

Oh—and who even sees doctors anymore? Most of my recent care has been from physician assistants. So the AI doesn’t even need to outperform doctors to be better.

[geov]

@Jrinne

For better or worse, much of your healthcare is already being guided by AI:

It is for worse.

[Jrinne]

Thank you for casting your vote for humans—seriously! But I think we’ve already lost, at least behind the scenes. Humans haven’t been replaced for surgery (yet), so maybe I’m exaggerating a bit. Still, in so many areas—screening, diagnosis, prior authorization—the real decisions are already being made by algorithms. The only real shift ahead is further integration of AI into what’s already the norm.

I say this because prior authorization is now where most care decisions happen. The physician—or more often, the physician assistant—just asks the insurance company. And the insurance company’s decision made by a computer—with it getting increasing difficult to get a human on the phone with any appeal. Seldom a physician when you do and never in your speciality. Usually a call center person at a computer screen.

And here’s the real issue: the algorithm isn’t neutral. It’s programmed to deny services to cut costs. UnitedHealthcare, for example, denies 22% of prior authorization requests. Senate Democrats release scathing report on Medicare Advantage denials

"According to a 2023 Senate report, UnitedHealthcare’s denial rate for post-acute care services rose from 10.9% in 2020 to 22.7% in 2022, particularly as the company increased automation in its review processes."

[ustonapc]

@marco

I don't think we will be seeing "empty shelves". It will all be re-adjusted soon to something like a 10% or so tariff. Just enough for some companies to start building factories....

Marco,

The CNN 10 min clip below is posted 4 days ago.

Also attached is another link from CNN on this issue.

Pls take a look if you have time.

Thanks.

Regards
James

'That sounds insane': Expert warns about empty shelves due to Trump's tariffs.

'That sounds insane': Expert warns about empty shelves due to Trump's tariffs

The last boats without crippling tariffs from China are arriving. The countdown to shortages and higher prices has begun

The last boats without crippling tariffs from China are arriving. The...

EDIT : It is not the current US adminstation plan to replace humans with robots in the new planned factories.

This is from US Commerce Secretary Lutnick: "We invent the Apple, [$AAPL] iPhone, which is awesome. Why do we let everyone else build it? Why can't we build it here? ... we need hundreds of thousands of Americans who work in those factories." Lutnick: It's time to train people not to do the jobs of the past, but to do the great jobs of the future. This is the new model where you work in these kinds of plants for the rest of your life, and your kids work here and your grandkids work here

[Chawasri]

Hi Marco,

@marco

In 5 years, when factories are ready, they will be all full of robots which will make them 100% competitive with factories in emerging economies.

Won't Trump and his obsession with tariffs be gone in five years? Thankfully, he recently said that he's not going to try to run again (which would be unconstitutional anyway).

Also, a search showed that statistics on the percentage of Chinese products manufactured by robots is lacking, but the only estimate I found was 5%. China makes a ton of plastic junk and cheap clothes bought by Americans. But then again, my iPhone, MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro were all made in China (so are Dell, Google and the other tech-device companies). Looks like India will be an enormous beneficiary of this chaos, but not America. I just rushed the purchase of an M4 Mac Mini because I didn't want to deal with the tariff nonsense.

Regarding empty shelves, shipping stats show that traffic is down 40%. The 145% tariffs on China is effectively a complete embargo on the import of products from that country. Maybe that will be negotiated down soon, but many believe the US has been put in a very precarious economic position by the tariffs.

I'm hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.

[InspectorSector]

"I can't believe he said it needs to be at 3% – considering it NEVER has been at 3%!"

You are confusing debt with deficit. The debt/GDP ratio peaked at 118% in 1945 and decreased to 31% in the early 1970s. The debt/GDP ratio was understandable high because of the second world war. Growth and prosperity resulted in a decrease of this ratio over the next 3 decades.

In the late 1990s, the federal government had a revenue surplus, a remarkable feat, proving that it is possible. So yes, a 3% deficit is not only possible, but is necessary to keep the debt under control and in line with inflation. We are in danger of ending up like Japan, whose economy has been a disaster for the last 40 years.

Today, the debt/GDP ratio is higher than it was in 1945 but the massive debt is not due to a world war and there is no expected growth spurt to reduce the debt level. There is no excuse for the current debt level. So, yes Americans do have a problem and this problem isn't going to be solved by kicking the can down the road.

We talk of the dangers of incurring a recession. Well, I remember a time when "Recession" wasn't a dirty word, but a necessary part of the business cycle, eliminating marginal businesses while strengthening the remainder. Now, politics trumps the business cycle and massive amounts of money is spent to avoid a recession (and stay in power)

The bigger picture that is not being talked about is that we are preparing for war with China. It may not happen in the next couple of years but it is coming. The Chinese are taking a lead in many areas of technology and it won't be long before they are challenging for military supremacy. All Trump's talk about annexation of Canada, Greenland, and Panama is to shore up American defenses. After all America will have to defend Canada in the event of an invasion, so why not own it? I'm Canadian BTW and not interested in being part of the USA, but I get the point. And the tariffs are to improve American self-sufficiency. A country at war cannot depend on foreign countries for its goods and resources. The country needs to have a strong manufacturing sector if war breaks out. This could translate to robotic manufacturing, not necessarily manual labor.

Steve

[ustonapc]

Steve,

I agree what you are saying about the 3% on US Debt/GDP ratio but not so much on the rest of the message especially regarding Trump's plan on the Annexation of Canada, Greenland and Panama Canals by force if necessary.

Canadians overwhelmingly oppose annexation by the United States, viewing it as a threat to their sovereignty, independence, and way of life. While some individuals, primarily in Alberta, may express interest in joining the US, the vast majority oppose such a move. Canadian public opinion and international law are both strongly against the annexation of Canada by a foreign power.

International law is on Canada’s side

The acquisition of territory by force has been illegal under international law since the end of the Second World War – ironically because of U.S. leadership at the San Francisco conference that drafted the 1945 United Nations Charter.

Article 2(4) requires all UN members to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation Among States affirms that no acquisition of territory by “the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal” and no state may use “economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of its exercise of its sovereign rights.”

Pls refer to this link for full article.

Regards
James

Canadian courts must be ready to resist U.S. annexation

[InspectorSector]

James - I'm Canadian and I oppose annexation. The point is that we Canadians are incapable of defending our territory from Russian/Chinese invasion. And we are certainly not spending enough on our military to be useful in that event. I'm afraid that International law is irrelevant in the case of war so I don't understand your argument. As an example, George Bush was charged with war crimes for the Iraqi war and where did that lead?

Both the Chinese and Russians are scouting our Northern territories as climate change opens up oil and gas resources.

I'm not advocating for annexation. I'm just saying that is the thought process of American leadership, ignoring the Trump circus act.

[ustonapc]

Steve,

Thanks for the quick reply.

However, I am still against the idea of annex another country/state whether the ultimate intention is for US to protect its international standing and influence or not. (I don't think starting a trade war with the rest of the world including North America, South America, the European Union, and Asia) helps advancing that goal.

I understand that your reply was to Chawasri. I will let him respond on the 3% Debt/GDP issue when he is back or whether he is referring to something else.

Regards
James

[InspectorSector]

Let me put it another way. China is flexing its muscles and it seems likely there will be a major conflict within the next decade. In order for the USA to be strong, it needs to retreat from the service economy model. One can't be powerful and receive one's products and resources from foreign countries at the same time, some of which you may be at war with. This has nothing to do with international standing and influence.

[Jrinne]

TL;DR: For China—is it really in the country’s long-term interest to continue buying U.S. bonds, only to be repaid later in devalued dollars? How does this benefit either side in the end?

And worse—it might not end with repayment in devalued dollars. A future conflict could be the poisonous cherry on top of an already flawed arrangement—hurting ordinary citizens on both sides of the Pacific.

It’s not just the debt—it’s who holds it. History shows that war has often been used to erase unpayable sovereign debt . If the U.S. were to go to war with a major bondholder, those obligations would almost certainly be deprioritized—if not nullified entirely .

Persistent trade deficits compel foreign trading partners to recycle their surpluses—often by purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds. While this arrangement may foster stability in peacetime, it becomes a potential vulnerability when those partners are also geopolitical rivals.

Ray Dalio argues that unsustainable debt—particularly when held by strategic adversaries—can become a catalyst for conflict . Throughout history, imbalances in trade, capital flows, and sovereign debt have frequently played a role in the outbreak of war (see Addendum).

If Dalio is right, reducing these imbalances—on both sides—could help eliminate a built-in pretext for future conflict. That seems like a goal worth pursuing.

I’m not an economist, but both InspectorSector and Dalio raise concerns that strike me as urgent and under-discussed. (And yes, Dalio can sound alarmist—but he often turns out to be early, not wrong.)

—

Ray Dalio

Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order:

“The production, trade, and capital imbalances (most importantly the debts) must come down one way or another, because they are dangerously unsustainable for monetary, economic, and geopolitical reasons.”

“Assuming that one can sell and lend to the U.S. and get paid back with hard (i.e., not devalued) dollars on their U.S. debt holdings is naive thinking.”

That second quote underscores the core concern: deficits and debt are not separate issues—they’re deeply intertwined, as InspectorSector has noted.

So, with genuine curiosity and respect: how exactly does this system serve the long-term interests of either the U.S. or China?

—

Addendum: Historical Debt and Conflict

1. Franco-Prussian War (1870)

France’s imperial overreach left it deeply indebted. After its defeat, it was forced to pay massive reparations to Germany—weakening itself while strengthening its rival, and seeding future hostility.

2. World War I

Germany’s exclusion from global capital markets and growing trade imbalances fueled tension. Once war broke out, many sovereign debts were effectively suspended or nullified.

3. World War II

Crushing reparations from WWI triggered German hyperinflation and collapse. Hitler’s rise hinged partly on rejecting those debts—war became the mechanism for a full economic reset.

4. U.S.–China Tensions (Current)
The U.S. continues to run large trade deficits, financed in part by Chinese bond purchases. In a future crisis—say, over Taiwan—China could weaponize this financial leverage by dumping U.S. debt, while any broader conflict could render those obligations effectively unenforceable or irrelevant.

If Ray—and InspectorSector—are right about the long-term risks, maybe it’s not too late to learn from history before we’re forced to relive it.

[ustonapc]

It certainly sounds like China owns a large chuck of US debt from what was stated above but it is far from the truth.

The majority of US debt issued is owned by US investors/US corporate holders and the Federal Reserve. Only about 1/4 of US debt roughly $36 trillion debt is owned abroad.

Japan currently owns about 2.7% of total outstanding while China and the United Kingdom owns about 2.2%.

This is updated 3 months ago from Reuters.

US Treasuries: Who owns US debt?

By Reuters

February 10, 20252:29 PM GMT+8Updated 3 months ago

https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/42TH7N7SGJK2DM24WU6TNKJDBQ.jpg?auth=f476c89283265c13fab588963c17a123275b946217ee17c85a61fee3c3989d88&width=4998&quality=80(image larger than 4 MB)

The Federal Reserve building is seen in Washington, U.S., January 26, 2022. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

Feb 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. government has nearly $36 trillion of debt on issue and its bonds are the bedrock of the global financial system.

President Donald Trump said Sunday his administration was examining Treasury debt payments for possible fraud and suggested that the country's debt might not be that high - remarks that may unsettle investors who regard the U.S. as creditworthy and its debt as a safe asset.

The Reuters Tariff Watch newsletter is your daily guide to the latest global trade and tariff news. Sign up here.

Treasuries are held widely and used globally as financial reserves, as a benchmark for pricing and as collateral for borrowing. Below is a breakdown of U.S. debt ownership.

Breakdown of US debt ownership by investor type

Breakdown of US debt holdings by foreign countries

By owner:

Owner	Holding size (U.S. dollars)
U.S. Federal Reserve system	$4.7 trillion
Social Security and other U.S. agencies	$2.4 trillion
Foreign investors	$8.7 trillion
U.S. investors and other U.S. holders	$19.7 trillion

And by foreign investor:

Country/Region/City	Holding size (U.S. dollars)
Japan	$1,099 billion
China	$768.6 billion
Britain	$765.6 billion
Luxembourg	$424.5 billion
Cayman Islands	$397 billion
Canada	$374.4 billion
Belgium	$361.3 billion
Ireland	$338.1 billion
France	$332.5 billion
Switzerland	$300.6 billion
Taiwan	$286.9 billion
Singapore	$257.7 billion
Hong Kong	$255.7 billion
India	$234 billion
Brazil	$229 billion
Norway	$159 billion
Saudi Arabia	$135.6 billion
South Korea	$127.8 billion
Mexico	$100.8 billion
Germany	$97.7 billion
Rest of World	$1,589 billion

Foreign ownership data is compiled monthly by the U.S. Treasury, which says it relies mostly on U.S.-based custodians and that because securities held in custody accounts may not be attributed to the actual owners, the data may not provide a precise account of individual country ownership of Treasuries.

Total U.S. debt is $35.5 trillion and it has been rising.

U.S. debt on issue

Reporting by Tom Westbrook; Editing by Stephen Coates

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/who-owns-us-debt-2025-02-10/

[Jrinne]

Thank you, James—that’s genuinely helpful. It does ease some of my concerns about the trade deficit.

Still, I keep thinking about this chart:

It’s true that the U.S. can issue debt to itself—through the Fed, Social Security, and other agencies—without necessarily triggering dollar devaluation. But are we really planning to pay ourselves (and everyone else) back in the long run without some form of currency erosion?

And to what extent are we buying our own bonds—at least in part—to help keep yields low in the first place? Maybe artificially low?

So I’m still left wondering: what exactly makes the status quo a great deal for China (long-term)? And if the two countries could cooperate on changes that benefit both sides, what would you suggest?

Sincere open-ended question. I’ll hold off on further commentary—I’m genuinely interested in your perspective.

[ustonapc]

I have a MSc (Finance) but not major in International Economics. So my understanding/knowledge about the status quo won't be too relevant. However, it will help if the US lower the existing tariff to begin negotiation with China asap. The rumor from the current US administration that the bond market shock was caused by China dumping US treasuries certainly didn't help things for sure.

Chawasri background maybe more suited to answer your question.

Regards
James

[ustonapc]

Trump says the US has reached a "full and comprehensive" trade agreement with the UK.

However, this is the view from economist Justin Wolfers when appearing on CNN this morning.

Trump's "big" trade deal is with the UK:

• It's a framework not a deal
• They're our 11th largest trading partner
• They're only 3% of US trade (97% to go)
• They already charge average tariffs of only 1% (limited upside)

It's a photo op, with little macroeconomic significance.

Regards
James

[plan_trader]

Not going according to the grand master plan then ...

[Chawasri]

Hi James and all,

A few additional thoughts about tariffs in light of recent events: This has NEVER been about getting more equitable trade deals with other countries.

It's not about Fentanyl (the first reason fabricated post hoc), and it's not about bringing manufacturing back to the US (the cost basis for manufacturing in the US is too high considering property values, cost of living, 600% wage difference, tax rates, etc.) – robots or not. There will be NO factories built in the US because of the Trump tariffs. Period.

The REAL REASON for the trade war is about one thing only:

TRUMP HATES TAXES!

Like everything else in the Trump era, it is all about what is best for The Donald, not about the nation or the American citizenry. Trump has been obsessed with tariffs for decades. You have probably seen the multiple news clips of Trump publicly railing against the "trade deficit" for the last 40 years.

Why would Trump have tariffs as his sole, seemingly exclusive ideological driver of his entire political philosophy?

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES!

Trump says he'll eliminate income taxes. There’s a problem with that [CNN Clip]

The scenario I imagine, back in the 1980s, was Trump having this thought process in his little orange brain:

1. "Daddy is giving me hundreds of millions of dollars and one day his real estate empire will be all mine!" and next, "I hate paying these damn taxes, it means there's less for me! Grrrrr"

2. Trump hears that there was no income tax at the turn of the last century – there were import tariffs. Trump reasons, obviously incorrectly, that no income tax means (wrongly) NO TAX, and has been obsessed with the idea ever since. Trump also wrongly believes that tariffs are paid by the exporting country, not the consumer. Trump has never figured out that tariffs ARE TAXES. In fact, the Trump tariffs are the most significant tax increase in US history.

For those readers who might think, "Well, what's so wrong with this idea?" Let me offer these brief rejoinders:

1. Tariffs are an extremely regressive tax that punishes poor and middle-income earners the most. In 1913, Congress legislated income taxes to replace regressive tariffs with progressive income taxes with rates that increase as income and ability to pay increase.

2. Tariffs can never be high enough to replace income taxes. Specifically, in 2023, the US imported $3.83 trillion in goods from other countries. Comparatively, the US federal government collected $5.1 trillion in tax revenue during fiscal year 2024. Tariffs on ALL imports would have to be 133% to replace the income generated from income taxes. This factor is the source of Trump's bizarre "Liberation Day" tariff numbers. The intention was to eliminate income taxes.

3. The US is a mature economy. The economics of manufacturing only work in emerging economies where the cost of living and wages are low. This principle still applies even if you build a robot-run factory floor. You don't eliminate the labor cost with robots; you pay for it up front and hope to have a stable pricing framework to amortize the hundreds of millions of dollars that sophisticated robotic machinery costs.

4. Very few Americans want to work long, repetitive hours in a filthy factory. I can barely find anyone who will mow my lawn each summer! The unemployment rate is around 4% (full employment), and no Americans are lusting after factory work. Again, the US is a mature, wealthy country, and the manufacturing ship sailed long ago.

5. For Trump, it's not about jobs anyway. When Americans lose jobs, Trump says, "That means we lose less money." WTF???

Bottom line: Our country is in the hands of an economically incompetent, pathologically insecure 4th grader who doesn't want to pay taxes. He has surrounded himself with 22 Fox News personalities whose only job qualification is that they are obsequious and will say "Yes Sir!" to all of Trump's grade-school caliber bad ideas.

Investment Thesis: Look out below... (smh)

Chawasri

[ustonapc]

Dear all,

After reading Chawasri message above, I decided to do quick check about Trump's taxes and found this article which is rather interesting to read. (Trump basically pays less taxes than an average US citizen despite claiming that he is a ultra successful businessmen and a multi-billionaire.)

Regards
James

Trump’s tax returns released by House committee show he paid little in taxes

Trump’s tax returns released by House committee show he paid little in taxes

The House Ways and Means Committee released six years of Trump's personal and business returns, ending years of legal wrangling and speculation.

Dec. 30, 2022, 10:06 PM GMT+8 / Updated Dec. 30, 2022, 11:24 PM GMT+8

By Dareh Gregorian, Laura Strickler and Ryan Nobles

A House committee on Friday made public six years of former President Donald Trump's tax returns, which showed he paid relatively little in federal taxes in the years before and during his presidency.

The House Ways and Means Committee had voted to make the thousands of pages of federal returns public in a party-line vote last week, but their release was delayed while staffers redacted sensitive personal information like Social Security numbers from the documents. Friday's release, the culmination of years of legal wrangling and speculation, included both personal and business records.

Trump on Friday blasted the release in a statement and on his Truth Social platform, saying “the Democrats should have never done it, the Supreme Court should have never approved it, and it’s going to lead to horrible things for so many people."

He also maintained the returns he fought to keep hidden — despite modern precedent that presidents make their returns public — "show how proudly successful I have been and how I have been able to use depreciation and various other tax deductions as an incentive for creating thousands of jobs and magnificent structures and enterprises.”

The panel’s top Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, called the release of the documents “unprecedented,” and said Democrats had unleashed “a dangerous new political weapon that reaches far beyond the former president, overturning decades of privacy protections for average Americans.”

“This is a regrettable stain on the Ways and Means Committee and Congress, and will make American politics even more divisive and disheartening. In the long run, Democrats will come to regret it,” Brady said.

The returns confirm much of what was contained in a 39-page report from the Joint Committee on Taxation released last week, including summaries from Trump’s personal tax forms and business entities, but also some new information as well.

The returns show that in the 2020 tax year, Donald and Melania Trump reported $78 million in gross income from 16 foreign countries — including the United Kingdom, Canada**,** Ireland and St. Martin, where Trump has properties. The gross income also included a reported $1.2 million from “other countries” — abbreviated as “OC” — that were not specified.

In 2017, Trump's first year in office, he also made $6.5 million from China, the returns show. The source of the China payments is not clear from the returns. The payments were a surprise since Trump is an outspoken critic of the $5.8 million Hunter Biden made in business deals with Chinese interests while his father, now-President Joe Biden, was out of office.

In all, the Trumps reported millions in foreign income and business expenses from businesses in at least 22 countries over the six-year period, the returns show, including at various points money from South Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkey, the Philippines and Brazil.

The couple paid little in federal taxes during Trump's presidency and appeared to owe none in 2020 after reporting large deductions and expenses that resulted in a net loss of $15 million. Trump then claimed a $5 million refund, according to the return.

Trump also reported zero charitable donations that year, the returns show. That was an outlier for Trump during his time in office — he reported $1.8 million in charitable giving in 2017, and just over $500,000 in charitable donations in 2018 and 2019, the returns show.

Trump pledged to donate his $400,000 presidential salary while in office, money he gave to various government agencies. It’s unclear from the returns if he attempted to claim any of those donations as charitable deductions. There’s no record of him donating his salary after the second quarter of 2020, when the White House mistakenly displayed the check Trump wrote, complete with his bank information.

There was also some surprising income on the 2020 return, which was prepared by a different accounting firm than in the prior years. Trump reported earning $133,173 from an unspecified book, but paid a ghost writer $44,201, leaving him about $89,000 in income. Melania Trump, meanwhile, reported earning $3,868 from modeling in 2020, with expenses of $3,868 completely offsetting the income.

Trump reported millions in negative income in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020, and he paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.

In 2019, Trump and his wife, Melania, reported significant losses of more than $16.4 million but reported a total income of $4.4 million.

The returns also show Trump had numerous foreign bank accounts between 2015 and 2016, including in China, the U.K., St. Martin and Ireland, which is a well-known tax haven.

The existence of the China account was first reported by The New York Times in 2020. Trump Organization lawyer Alan Garten told the paper then that the company had “opened an account with a Chinese bank having offices in the United States in order to pay the local taxes” after opening an office “to explore the potential for hotel deals in Asia.”

His 2018 through 2020 returns only note having an account in the U.K. “I have many bank accounts and they’re all listed and they’re all over the place,” Trump said during an October 2020 presidential debate. “I was a businessman doing business.”

The committee report also listed several overarching issues it believed the IRS should have investigated. For example, Trump claimed large cash donations to charities, but the report said the IRS did not verify them. The report also said that while Trump’s tax filings were large and complicated, the IRS does not appear to have assigned experts to work on them.

The Ways and Means Committee separately released a 29-page report summarizing its investigation into an IRS policy that mandates audits of returns filed by presidents and vice presidents. The committee found that the IRS had largely not followed its own internal requirements, beginning to examine Trump’s returns only after the House panel inquired about the process. Just one year of Trump’s returns was officially selected for the mandatory review while he was in office, and that audit of Trump's 2016 taxes was not complete by the time he left the White House, according to the report.

An audit of Trump's 2015 taxes was started shortly before the 2016 audit in 2019 — the same day the Ways and Means committee asked for information on the mandatory audits. Neither the 2015 audit nor audits of Trump's 2017-19 taxes that began after he left office were marked as being part of the audit program, and as of last month, none had been marked as completed either, the committee said.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., a member of the House Oversight Committee, told MSNBC Friday, "I’m not thrilled about anyone’s tax returns being made public," but said Trump's case shows "the presidential audit program was completely broken."

He said that the Ways and Means investigation showed "the IRS is just not equipped to deal with sophisticated taxpayers like Donald Trump. I think the internal records have revealed that the IRS didn’t feel like it could properly audit the 400 sub-returns that were indicated on Trump’s main 1040 tax return, and so I think it all speaks to the need for the IRS to get the resources they need to audit sophisticated taxpayers like Trump."

The committee obtained Trump's tax returns in November, following a yearslong court fight for documents that other presidents have routinely made public since the 1970s.

The dispute ended up at the Supreme Court, which rejected Trump’s last-ditch plea to block the release of his tax records to House Democrats in a brief order handed down just before Thanksgiving.

Trump's refusal to release his returns led to a swirl of suspicions about what he might be trying to hide — foreign business dealings, a smaller fortune than he'd claimed publicly or paying less in taxes than the average American.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump maintained that he couldn't release his returns because they were under audit, and that he would make them public when it was completed — a vow he walked away from after he took office.

Information about his taxes has dripped out over the years.

In October 2016, The New York Times published some of Trump's 1995 state taxes and reported that he'd declared a $916 million loss that year. Three tax experts hired by the paper said the size of the loss and tax rules governing wealthy filers at the time could have allowed Trump to legally pay no federal income taxes for 18 years.

After Trump took office in 2017, reporter David Cay Johnston went on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" with what he said were two pages of Trump's Form 1040 from 2005.

The documents, which were published on Johnston's site DCReport.org, showed that Trump had paid $38 million in federal income tax on more than $150 million in income.

In September 2020, the Times reported that it had obtained two decades of Trump’s tax information, which showed he had not paid any income taxes in 10 of the prior 15 years, mostly because he reported significant losses. In the year he won the presidency and during his first year in office, he paid just $750 in federal income tax, the paper found.

Asked about the report at the time, the then-president said the story was “made up" and that he’s “paid a lot of money in state” taxes. He later tweeted that he’d “paid many millions of dollars in taxes but was entitled, like everyone else, to depreciation & tax credits.”

Trump also fought unsuccessfully to keep his tax information out of the hands of investigators in New York, who were probing his business practices. That clash also went all the way to the Supreme Court, which denied Trump's attempt to block a grand jury from getting Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns in February of last year.

Those returns helped prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office build a tax fraud case against Trump's company, the Trump Organization. The company was convicted this month of carrying out a 15-year tax fraud scheme that prosecutors said was orchestrated by top executives at the company.

During the trial, Trump's accountant Donald Bender testified that the former president had losses totaling $900 million in 2009 and 2010.

The company is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 13. Trump, who was not charged in the case, has dismissed the allegations and conviction as part of a politically motivated "witch hunt."

[Chawasri]

During the trial, Trump's accountant Donald Bender testified that the former president had losses totaling $900 million in 2009 and 2010.

Trump shouldn't have played a fictional rich guy on The Apprentice. A more apt role for him would have been the star of "America's Biggest Loser!"

It's fun to watch the wheels come off the Trump clown car (until you realize we're all riding in the back).

[plan_trader]

Trump: "We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we're essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we're saving hundreds of billions of dollars. It's very simple."