Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Trump is a big fairness buff.

And before you say "But that contradicts things" remember that WHAT is fair might differ between you and Trump.

[EnigmaticHat]

The democrats are totally going to introduce good ideas (or stuff that would sound like good ideas to their base) and then point at it and be like "look!  Look what the Republicans blocked!"  In the grand scheme of everything that's happened in congress lately I say go for it.  Its posturing sure, but its posturing that comes at no real cost to us as a nation.  Compare, say, shutting down the government when you don't get your way.

[Neonivek]

The democrats are totally going to introduce good ideas (or stuff that would sound like good ideas to their base) and then point at it and be like "look!  Look what the Republicans blocked!"  In the grand scheme of everything that's happened in congress lately I say go for it.  Its posturing sure, but its posturing that comes at no real cost to us as a nation.  Compare, say, shutting down the government when you don't get your way.

I love the shutting down of government thing because it shows such an immature viewpoint.

I remember when people would go "Ok, what if a murderer said to chose who he would kill... and if you didn't he would kill them both"
So I went "I don't chose anyone"
and they go "So you just killed two people"
and I went (in my head): "No... the murderer killed two people and he was just looking for justification for murdering them by putting it on me. I am not responsible for his actions"

So what is the government shut down mentality? Ohh right! "If the government shuts down it is entirely your fault for not giving in to us!"

[alway]

Speaking of shutting down the government, the EPA has all but been shut down now, and the USDA has been banned from sharing its findings with the public. The Flint Michigan water investigation was halted, and both the Keystone XL and DAPL pipeline constructions have been given the go-ahead.

[martinuzz]

Democrats are proposing a $550M infrastructure plan, paid for by "closing tax loopholes." Further statements and the official proposal to come.

They probably found proof on Trump's tax evasion, and that's the amount he owes the treasury

[Sheb]

Fuck, he wasn't kidding with those threat to the EPA. So much for those hope of a weaker presidency.

[martinuzz]

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trump-wil-versnelde-aanleg-omstreden-oliepijpleidingen-keystone-xl-en-dakota~a4452836/

Main gist: KeystoneXL and Dakota pipeline are back on the board, EPA has been banned from engaging in any contracts or subsidizing 'until the organistation has been throuroughly investigates', which is apparently part of a larger scheme, in which Trump has frozen all government calls for tenders, with the exception of the military.

[alway]

Speaking of shutting down the government, the EPA has all but been shut down now, and the USDA has been banned from sharing its findings with the public. The Flint Michigan water investigation was halted, and both the Keystone XL and DAPL pipeline constructions have been given the go-ahead.

Source?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/trump-freezes-epa-grants-while-california-plans-to-slash-emissions/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/dinograndoni/trump-usda
Though on the Flint one, I was mistaken in that it actually was shut down a month ago. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-gop-quietly-closes-flint-mich-water-investigation/

[Reelya]

The democrats are totally going to introduce good ideas (or stuff that would sound like good ideas to their base) and then point at it and be like "look!  Look what the Republicans blocked!"  In the grand scheme of everything that's happened in congress lately I say go for it.  Its posturing sure, but its posturing that comes at no real cost to us as a nation.  Compare, say, shutting down the government when you don't get your way.

But the Democrats did campaign on closing tax loopholes before the election:

http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/10/09/3-tax-loopholes-hillary-clinton-wants-to-close.aspx

3 Tax Loopholes Hillary Clinton Wants to Close
Find out exactly how the Democratic Presidential candidate expects to change the U.S. tax system.

1. Overseas corporate inversions

One of the most egregious practices among major companies in the past several years has been the corporate inversion. To do a corporate inversion, a U.S. company typically seeks to acquire a smaller company in another country that has lower corporate tax rates. ... Already, the federal government has clamped down on corporate inversions, with the Treasury Department issuing regulations aimed at prohibiting repeated inversions ... Yet Clinton wants to take things a step further, charging an exit tax on corporations that move their tax homes from the U.S. to another country. That's similar to what the U.S. tax system does to individual expatriates who give up their personal citizenship in order to avoid tax
...
2. The carried interest provision

The way that Wall Street professionals get compensated was an issue in the 2012 Presidential campaign, primarily because former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had experience in the financial world. The carried interest provision allows managers of hedge funds, private equity companies, and other investments to take their pay as a share of the profits from the investments they make. Because these performance fees are based on the behavior of the investments, the tax code taxes them as long-term capital gains at a maximum rate of 20%. ... Clinton would tax carried interest as ordinary income
...
3. Estate-tax valuation strategies

One area of taxation that continues to draw strong feelings is the estate tax. Opponents refer to the levy as a death tax and see it as double taxation of money that has already been subject to income tax, but Clinton believes that the tax serves a purpose and is aiming to strengthen it. ... In particular, Clinton wants to close loopholes that give the wealthy an incentive to use strategies aimed solely at tax avoidance.

There's probably in excess of 550 million among those loopholes Clinton targeted in her campaign. It's not an issue the Democrats are "suddenly" discovering, they've been going after tax loopholes for years. Obama cracked down, Clinton promised to crack down more.

[smjjames]

This BS is what I was going on earlier about Trump probably not accepting the results of 2020 should he lose or something: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/wh-trump-believes-millions-voted-illegally/index.html

The Hill article.

Several Republicans have slammed it, and here's Vox's article on it

All of THIS is what I was talking about earlier. I don't know if he's the type willing to pull strings to try and influence the vote, but the whole thing seems very Nixonesque.

[LoSboccacc]

I also severely doubt the ability an/or will to go after child labour.

ugh, hope it was all ded. I still hope the eu suckers won't sign it but they have the tendency on signing whatever they got put in front. I should try with a check someday.

You're thinking of TPIP. Or whatever it is called. It's one letter more.

aaaah! ok then, I was super confused I looked it up afterward and basically I completely lost my bearings.

Spoiler: edit: this now surfaced. I lol'd. (click to show/hide)

no idea what it says tho

[Wolfhunter107]

Notice how that back area in the Obama picture is conveniently out of frame?

[Tawa]

Neither one of those is an Obama picture. The one on the left is Inauguration Day, the one on the right is the Womens' March. I'm not sure which one the one on the bottom is, though it looks more like the march.

[Wolfhunter107]

I stand corrected.

[Frumple]

Eh... there's more he could do to the USCIS than cut pay, from what I recall of the few minutes I spent checking the relationship there. Pretty sure it's more or less directly subordinate to the stuff the presidency has full/substantial control over (vis a vis structure, functioning, etc.), so the scope of capability is... kinda' anything, roughly speaking. Least it looked like if he really wanted to, he could more or less fire any/every one in the USCIS, tell them all to stop working, freeze hiring _{(campaign promise)}, etc., etc., etc. Can't self fund if you're no longer allowed to do the stuff that funds yeh, heh. It'd be a procedural/legal hell to actually go through with, but the question is if that'd actually stop the folks involved.

Presumably there's some sort of limit(s) on what could happen there, based on whatever bit of legislature the USCIS has been being used by the executive branch to fulfill its obligations toward, but I can't recall there being a legal/procedural issue if the executive branch wants to just kinda' get rid of/gut one of its subordinate organizations by/while claiming intent to reorganize/restructure/etc. to (better) fulfill legislative responsibility (regardless as to if the intent to fulfill that responsibility is there, ha*). It probably hasn't happened much/at all, because deep sixing a major governmental organization without having transitioned its duties elsewhere/readied some kind of replacement/etc. is basically monumentally freaking stupid and by and large our previous executive branches has managed to at least have the cognitive stability to avoid something that colossal of a cock up, but...

*Structural inertia and whatnot being what it is, it's entirely possible for the process alone to take longer than a presidential term, which basically means if you had a particularly bad faith president, you could probably end up with them intentionally screwing around for their whole term and not really having to deal with consequences, because the results of their mess gets dumped on whoever comes after. Happens pretty often with lower levels of government, tbh. Governors or somethin' doing crap during their term(s) that have repercussions/don't really come into effect until afterwards, that the state/next governor/whatever ends up getting screwed by a few years down the road.