The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Logan]

The taxes paid to bring $$$ back into the country is a slam dunk for them. It's a small price to pay to get to deploy $250B+, and most of it will go to share buybacks anyway. Now let's see how much of that $30B in US investment comes to pass.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Geez all you people need to lose some weight

Right, I feel puny at 6' 195

[BBT]

Thoughts on the possibility of the government shutting down this week?

[AlexB]

Well I’m sure the President is doing his best to make sure the government has a united, positive and amenable attitude to avoid the shutdown.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So, no response to Apple’s and Chrysler’s big news? Instead, you would rather play in the same crap that Trump wallows in. It is that arrogance that is partly the reason that bastard got elected in the first place.

I don't know the Chrysler move but the Apple one isn't that big of a deal. It's a $1.5 trillion dollar tax cut and we're celebrating $300 million going back to some employees? With Apple's average salary at $100k, it's a 2.5% one year raise which is kind of standard at a lot of companies.

It's also vested stock over 3 years. So it's as much a tool to limit turnover as it is a "bonus".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Regardless of what you think about the whole Tax legislation, I do think this specific incentive is good. Kudo's to Apple and new repatriation rules. Hopefully more companies will follow.

Apple: We'll pay $38B in taxes and add 20,000 jobs in the U.S. - Jan. 17, 2018

Repatriation is a giant fuck you to every company that paid their taxes at the normal tax rate over the years. I understand why it's done but it's another example of a company that was screwing over this country getting a handout.

[JPhillips]

In the House there are basically three political parties, the Dems, the GOP, and the Freedom Caucus. Basically no Dems will vote for a CR, all the GOP will for a CR and the Freedom Caucus is the big unknown. My guess is they find a short term solution tomorrow, but maybe they don't.

As to the substance of the debate, a DACA fix would pass the Senate and probably the House, a CHIP extension would pass the Senate and probably the House, but the GOP wants to use them as leverage to get other things.

[Jas_lov]

I think there will be a shut down. They don't seem to have 60 votes in the Senate right now. And Trump is confusing as hell tweeting that CHIP shouldn't be included in a short term CR this morning and then the White House had to reverse that. How do you work with that guy? Just send him the DACA and CHIP bills and force him to veto them, which he won't.

[JPhillips]

But the GOP leadership won't let them come up for a vote.

[JPhillips]

And the Freedom Caucus caved. On to the Senate where the most underreported story is that the GOP probably only has 49 votes as a best case with McCain in AZ and Cochran medically questionable at best.

[NobodyHere]

Can we stop using the term 'government shutdown'? Wouldn't 'short term partial government sabbatical' be more accurate?

[Atocep]

At one point Trump was OK with a government shutdown. Now that one is possibly imminent his tune has changed.

[Jas_lov]

Because he knows he'll be blamed. He'll probably be playing golf in Florida this weekend while the shutdown happens. He's supposed to be this great deal maker so make a deal. And a deal was already made by Durbin and Graham, which he said before he'd sign.

[Thomkal]

This is why evangelicals voted for him:

Trump administration announces new 'conscience and religious freedom' division at HHS - ABC News

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Atocep

At one point Trump was OK with a government shutdown. Now that one is possibly imminent his tune has changed.

He won't be able to funnel cash to his resorts during a shutdown.

[Thomkal]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out Gov. Christie:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ck/1047239001/

[Thomkal]

Trump, showing how dedicated he is to this country has announced he will not be going to Florida this weekend in case Congress is able to get a spending deal on his desk. What dedication!

[PilotMan]

The next thing down the shithole express is the president trying to sell his infrastructure plan which is mostly just a bunch of govt loans to entice private companies to do all the work and therefore return that cost back to the customer. I bet trump would sell off the entire highway and interstate structure for tolls if he thought he could get away with it.

{edit: lack of capitalization intended.}

[BBT]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...proval-rating/

Trump’s approval rating is 22 percentage points lower than the average modern president’s. Meanwhile, his net approval rating (approval rating minus disapproval rating), -15 percentage points, makes him the only president in negative territory one year through his first term. Trump’s closest precedent is Gerald Ford, who had a net approval rating of just +5 points one year in.

Of course, Trump’s historical unpopularity has been true for a while. His approval rating started in the mid-40s (still his high-water mark), dropped as low as the mid-30s, and has rebounded to somewhere in between. He’s abnormally unpopular for a first-year president, but the movement in his approval rating has been pretty normal. Back in July (about six months into his presidency), Trump was an unpopular president whose approval rating had experienced an average drop from the term’s beginning to its halfway mark. That’s still true: Trump is an unpopular president whose approval rating has moved a roughly average amount from the halfway mark of his term to now.

Excluding Trump, the average president since Truman saw his approval rating rise by less than a point from halfway into his first year through the end of it.

Now, you might ask, “Why hasn’t Trump’s job approval rating dropped more?” After all, a lot what’s coming out of the White House is negative (at least if you judge it by the news coverage).

For one, there are factors exerting upward pressures on Trump’s rating — important ones. The economy, for example, is doing quite well by most measures. In fact, it’s notable that Trump is as unpopular in this economic environment.

Secondly, presidents’ approval ratings tend to revert toward 50 percent over the long term. Given that Trump started his term with an approval rating that was below 50 percent, there might be a natural force pulling his rating up. The two presidents who had approval ratings below 50 percent halfway through their first year in office (Ford and Bill Clinton) each saw at least 9-point increases by the end of that year. Meanwhile, the presidents who had an approval rating of 50 percent or higher halfway through their first year in office suffered, on average, a 1 point decline. Those with an approval rating of 60 percent or higher halfway through their first year in office suffered, on average, a decline of 4 points.

No matter how you look at it, the verdict one year into Trump’s tenure remains the same as it was halfway in: He is an unusually unpopular president who is doing worse than you’d expect based on the presidencies that preceded his.

The big question is whether the recent climb in Trump’s approval rating will continue. Maybe his popularity will start tracking more closely with where the strong economy suggests it should be. Or maybe the recent upswing for Trump and Republicans is merely a blip and his approval rating will drop back into the mid-30s. The midterms — and control of Congress — could be riding on the answer.

[cartman]

Always an opposing tweet.

My sense is that people are far angrier at the President than they are at Congress re the shutdown—an interesting turn!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2013

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He won't be able to funnel cash to his resorts during a shutdown.

sure he will, SS is considered protection of life an property....

shut downs only hurt working feds and contractors.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by cartman

Always an opposing tweet.

Always.

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 8, 2013

[Jas_lov]

Senate vote 50-48. Government will shut down.

[Edward64]

It's unclear to me what else the Dems want besides DACA. I think they want other things to? If it truly is primarily about DACA, then I'm in the below camp. This is a weak position for the Dems and think it can backfire on them.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politi...aca/index.html

With hours to go before a midnight deadline for Congress to fund the government or shut it down, most Americans say avoiding a shutdown is more important than passing a bill to maintain the program allowing people brought to the US illegally as children to stay, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

But Democrats taking a hard line on legislation connecting government funding to the popular program known as DACA appear to have the backing of their constituents, and more overall say President Donald Trump or the Republicans in Congress would be responsible for a shutdown if one happens.

[JPhillips]

I think there's short term damage, but when the President rejected a long negotiated deal and then apparently rejected a personally negotiated deal today, what do you do? Giving in only gets you back in this position in a month. I'm not thrilled with the filibuster, but the GOP has shown pretty clearly that persuadable voters aren't paying attention and will just blame the party in power when things go wrong.

[bronconick]

McConnell can't herd his own cats right now. He lost 4, plus McCain's absence. He needs a dozen Dem votes then.. He got 5. He's not even close.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's unclear to me what else the Dems want besides DACA. I think they want other things to? If it truly is primarily about DACA, then I'm in the below camp. This is a weak position for the Dems and think it can backfire on them.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politi...aca/index.html

DACA is heavily supported by the public, is supported by dems in congress, is publicly supported by the GOP in congress, but is opposed by the President and McConnell can't unite his party enough to decide how much they support it.

I don't think this one will end up falling on the dems shoulders. Government shutdowns always fall on the party with majority control. The fact that this will be the first shutdown when one party controls congress and the executive says quite a bit.

[bronconick]

They also keep doing these piss ant two week extensions instead of doing any work or negotiations. Partially because of that, they've gone from 8 Dem "no"s on 12/7 to 29 on 12/22 to 44 tonight.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

DACA is heavily supported by the public...

But not at the expense of a government shutdown. I work with several single mothers and God help the Dems if their tax returns get delayed.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

But not at the expense of a government shutdown. I work with several single mothers and God help the Dems if their tax returns get delayed.

We lose all household income over this so I'm well aware of the impact.

Anecdotally people are going to be pissed at the dems the same as people were supposed to be pissed at the republicans over the Obamacare shutdown. However, it always falls on the majority party in the end. Without fail.

[panerd]

Thank you Senator Paul. What bullshit from Congress (and the news media) trying to spin this as a DACA for or against issue. When is this government ever going to curb its appetite for out of control spending? Republicans (supposedly the conservatives) control everything and they still want to spend, spy on Americans, and spend some more. Kudos also to Mike Lee and while I have trouble trusting Lindsay Graham supposedly they are some bombshells on the way about the FBI and domestic spying so I will see what that brings. Sorry Trump and GOP but you don’t just get a rubber stamp to spend because you control everything.

Of course by the time I go to bed some sort of compromise and business as usual will probably already have been reached.

[JPhillips]

It is important to note that a clean DACA fix and a clean CHIP extension could pass any time they were brought to the floor.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

Thank you Senator Paul. What bullshit from Congress (and the news media) trying to spin this as a DACA for or against issue. When is this government ever going to curb its appetite for out of control spending? Republicans (supposedly the conservatives) control everything and they still want to spend, spy on Americans, and spend some more. Kudos also to Mike Lee and while I have trouble trusting Lindsay Graham supposedly they are some bombshells on the way about the FBI and domestic spying so I will see what that brings. Sorry Trump and GOP but you don’t just get a rubber stamp to spend because you control everything.

Of course by the time I go to bed some sort of compromise and business as usual will probably already have been reached.

Yeah I either love or hate Rand Paul and this one of the times I approve.

[bronconick]

At least he's consistent

[mckerney]

Trump Whines: Shutdown Fight Could Make Me Miss ‘My Party’

On the eve of a possible government shutdown, President Donald Trump privately vented frustrations that the political impasse could possibly keep him from attending a glitzy inauguration anniversary bash and fundraiser set for Saturday at his Florida getaway Mar-a-Lago.

Two sources close to the president, one a White House official and the other a longtime confidant, told The Daily Beast how excited he was for the event and relayed his growing concern that the potential failure to strike a deal to keep the federal government open could keep him from “my party,” as the president has said.

[NobodyHere]

This needs to pass

JUST IN: Group of Senate Democrats introduce bill to withhold congressional pay during government shutdown:

“If members of Congress can’t figure this out and keep the government open, then none of us should get paid.”

— Sen. Claire McCaskill pic.twitter.com/fWk1ukZwz9

— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) January 19, 2018

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by cartman

Always an opposing tweet.

My sense is that people are far angrier at the President than they are at Congress re the shutdown—an interesting turn!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2013

Sometimes opposing video too.

This will be called the #TrumpShutdown. There is no one who deserves the blame for the position we find ourselves in more than President Trump. pic.twitter.com/WE3SH9TpRU

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 20, 2018

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This needs to pass

JUST IN: Group of Senate Democrats introduce bill to withhold congressional pay during government shutdown:

“If members of Congress can’t figure this out and keep the government open, then none of us should get paid.”

— Sen. Claire McCaskill pic.twitter.com/fWk1ukZwz9

— NBC Politics (@NBCPolitics) January 19, 2018

This, or something like it, gets proposed every time.

TL;DR: it's unconstitutional. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The 27th Amendment, proposed in the 18th century and finally ratified in 1992, was designed to prevent Congress from voting themselves immediate pay raises. The way it's worded, they can't vote themselves immediate pay cuts, either.

They could pass a bill that contemplates punitive measures in the event of future shutdowns, but it could not legally take force until after the 2018 class of Representatives gets seated about this time next year.

That's why one side or the other proposes these bills every time there's a shutdown or the threat of one, but nothing ever comes of it.

It's good optics and it plays well with your average voter when a Senator says "if we can't unfuck this shit, we shouldn't get paid," but the hurdle between 'we should' and 'we can' is sufficient that by the time such a law could actually take effect, the shutdown has come and gone and nobody is focused much on the pay issue any longer.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

The attached press release references that, I know, but it's a little bit inside baseball as far as most citizens are concerned. It's not like the Bill of Rights where the Amendments have a sound-bite quality to them that enables the average citizen to go 'oh yeah that's a thing.'

Instead, the idea that 'if we can't unfuck this shit we shouldn't get paid' resonates with folks on a gut level, but probably 99% of them don't realize that it's not possible to do to sitting Congressfolk, and that any given time this bill, or something like it, is proposed, the timing is such that it's either right after an election (so two years before it can kick in), or gearing up for an election (in the current case, about ten months).

The nature of the fiscal calendar is such that this issue never rears its head at a time when the distance between proposed action and potential remedy is short enough for the voting public to connect the dots.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This, or something like it, gets proposed every time.

TL;DR: it's unconstitutional. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The 27th Amendment, proposed in the 18th century and finally ratified in 1992, was designed to prevent Congress from voting themselves immediate pay raises. The way it's worded, they can't vote themselves immediate pay cuts, either.

They could pass a bill that contemplates punitive measures in the event of future shutdowns, but it could not legally take force until after the 2018 class of Representatives gets seated about this time next year.

That's why one side or the other proposes these bills every time there's a shutdown or the threat of one, but nothing ever comes of it.

It's good optics and it plays well with your average voter when a Senator says "if we can't unfuck this shit, we shouldn't get paid," but the hurdle between 'we should' and 'we can' is sufficient that by the time such a law could actually take effect, the shutdown has come and gone and nobody is focused much on the pay issue any longer.

So you're saying it's a good PR move for a Dem senator from Missouri who voted for cloture on the bill and is up for reelection in November.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by mckerney

So you're saying it's a good PR move for a Dem senator from Missouri who voted for cloture on the bill and is up for reelection in November.

It's a good PR move for any Senator who voted for cloture, because the optics resonate well with the general public.

Doesn't matter whether the bill ever gets traction for the reasons mentioned. The 27th Amendment means that by the time it could take effect, nobody would notice.

But playing things off such that "I'M the adult in the room; it's the rest of Congress that can't unfuck its shit" will almost never play badly with one's constituency.

[Edward64]

WTF CNN.

You have a freaking shutdown counter w/seconds ticking off in your lower right. I'm good with a clock but with seconds ticking off is pretty damn annoying. Good way to attract viewers you idiots.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah I either love or hate Rand Paul and this one of the times I approve.

Wonder what his neighbor thinks?

Still a weird story.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politi...ges/index.html

A 58-year old Kentucky man is being charged with assaulting a member of Congress connected with the November attack on GOP Sen. Rand Paul while he was mowing his yard wearing headphones.

US Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana Josh Minkler on Friday announced a felony charge against Rene A. Boucher.

Boucher, the US attorney said, allegedly saw Paul "stack brush onto a pile near the victim's property and 'had enough.'" According to the statement, Boucher has signed a plea agreement and has admitted the assault, denying any political motivation.

Boucher faces up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000, according to the US attorney.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

This, or something like it, gets proposed every time.

TL;DR: it's unconstitutional. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The 27th Amendment, proposed in the 18th century and finally ratified in 1992, was designed to prevent Congress from voting themselves immediate pay raises. The way it's worded, they can't vote themselves immediate pay cuts, either.

They could pass a bill that contemplates punitive measures in the event of future shutdowns, but it could not legally take force until after the 2018 class of Representatives gets seated about this time next year.

That's why one side or the other proposes these bills every time there's a shutdown or the threat of one, but nothing ever comes of it.

It's good optics and it plays well with your average voter when a Senator says "if we can't unfuck this shit, we shouldn't get paid," but the hurdle between 'we should' and 'we can' is sufficient that by the time such a law could actually take effect, the shutdown has come and gone and nobody is focused much on the pay issue any longer.

I don't think it violates the 27th if pay is withheld during the shutdown, but then paid back when the government reopens (as happens with many federal workers). That way the compensation hasn't varied, only the schedule of compensation has changed.

[kingfc22]

Paul Ryan should get a refund on his acting classes.

What a d-bag.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think it violates the 27th if pay is withheld during the shutdown, but then paid back when the government reopens (as happens with many federal workers). That way the compensation hasn't varied, only the schedule of compensation has changed.

Yeah, but the 27th doesn't differentiate between amount and schedule.

Nor does the 27th forbid changing the schedule - what it says is you can't make that change until after an intermediate election has passed and the new Congress seated.

And that's the larger issue. The Supreme Court would have to weigh in on what "varying the compensation" actually means. Or meant, as this is a fun case where the text was drafted by the Founders and ratified 200 years later. Was it simply to keep Congress from repeatedly looting the Treasury on its own behalf, or did the Founders envision a world where the issue of Congress being paid at all would become a political football as the government struggled to meet its basic Constitutional duties?

Straight up, the 27th very much appears to block a bill of this nature from taking full force for a year, even if passed tomorrow. But maybe the Supreme Court would be sympathetic to a looser reading of the text.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yeah, but the 27th doesn't differentiate between amount and schedule.

Nor does the 27th forbid changing the schedule - what it says is you can't make that change until after an intermediate election has passed and the new Congress seated.

And that's the larger issue. The Supreme Court would have to weigh in on what "varying the compensation" actually means. Or meant, as this is a fun case where the text was drafted by the Founders and ratified 200 years later. Was it simply to keep Congress from repeatedly looting the Treasury on its own behalf, or did the Founders envision a world where the issue of Congress being paid at all would become a political football as the government struggled to meet its basic Constitutional duties?

Straight up, the 27th very much appears to block a bill of this nature from taking full force for a year, even if passed tomorrow. But maybe the Supreme Court would be sympathetic to a looser reading of the text.

But under that reading, wouldn't the government be violating minimum wage law for the federal workers whose pay is stopped, but still have to work during a shutdown? Senators currently make $174,000 a year. If that amount hasn't changed, then I think it's a pretty easy argument to say that compensation hasn't varied. I think SCOTUS would agree, unless there is some legislative history that shows the ratification was intended to deal with scheduling also, but I highly doubt that.

Of course, the bill would go into effect until blocked by the courts, and only 535 people in the US would likely have the right to sue in this case. It would be political suidice for any of them to do so.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But under that reading, wouldn't the government be violating minimum wage law for the federal workers whose pay is stopped, but still have to work during a shutdown? Senators currently make $174,000 a year. If that amount hasn't changed, then I think it's a pretty easy argument to say that compensation hasn't varied. I think SCOTUS would agree, unless there is some legislative history that shows the ratification was intended to deal with scheduling also, but I highly doubt that.

Of course, the bill would go into effect until blocked by the courts, and only 535 people in the US would likely have the right to sue in this case. It would be political suidice for any of them to do so.

The 27th explicitly calls out Congressional pay. Not the pay of Federal employees. They could pass a bill nerfing, say, Trump's pay until the shutdown ends. The 27th shrugs at that.

They could pass a law mandating that military funding continues unabated at prior levels in the interim in the case of a shutdown. 27th doesn't care.

They could pass a law that doubles the pay of any federal employee furloughed during a shutdown. Yes, that's ridiculous. No, it's not forbidden by the 27th Amendment.

It's the House and Senate with which the 27th concerns itself.

[larrymcg421]

I never said all federal employees were covered under the 27th and I'm frankly confused as to how you read it that way. (I even said only 535 people could sue.)

My point was that under the theory the 27th mandates the same schedule, then minimum wage law should mandate you can't pay someone nothing with the promise of later back pay.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I never said all federal employees were covered under the 27th and I'm frankly confused as to how you read it that way. (I even said only 535 people could sue.)

My point was that under the theory the 27th mandates the same schedule, then minimum wage law should mandate you can't pay someone nothing with the promise of later back pay.

"Should" and "does" aren't the same thing. You can make that case, but it's not a 27th Amendment case - it's a 14th Amendment case. Kinda. It's an equal protection issue since Congressional pay is explicitly protected, but the 14th calls out the states, not the feds. The courts have been willing to throw that blanket over federal infringements, also, but you'd still have to convince SCOTUS that it applies here also.