The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

FWIW, this article has a lot more information

Ford invests $700M in Mich., cancels plan for Mexico plant

I think its a positive move for the US - but its nothing to do with Trump and the Ford CEO has said that he'd have been doing the same regardless of who was president which the press (and Trump) are happily ignoring.

Its purely a business decision - in general Ford assembles US cars in the US (its good for business and some of the car buying public purchases based on this sort of thing - its why Ford dealerships note such things on their tags) and cars for other markets elsewhere (which is what the places in Mexico are building - they are also expanding their jobs you might note).

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

That's awesome. What does the new person do?

Milk cows, push cow shit into a pit. More importantly, his arrival means I am training more experienced people for new jobs.

Had to get him here before Donald gets that wall built. Judging by all the Nicaraguans up here, I'd think he could lighten the load on Mexico a little bit by making some of the Central American countries pitch in too.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Source for that? I think the corporate tax rate is somewhat too high, but I'm not sure 15% is a better answer than 25 (current federal rate is 35%, and effective rate is closer to 27, which is a different issue), and you'd need a lot of businesses moving listed HQ's back to the US to increase GDP that much. (I also assume you mean taxable corporate income in the last sentence, not corporate tax income.) But there are also reasons beyond lower tax rates to charter a company or specific divisions in a different country.

Indeed. I mean companies moved HQs to Ireland not just because of the low tax rate (and interestingly enough Irish law had massive loopholes which allowed for companies to basically pay 0% while the 'official' rate was 12.5%), but ALSO because it was in the EU (btw, this is also a reason that many companies have indicated it may move their European HQs from London after Brexit actually comes into effect).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by lungs

Milk cows, push cow shit into a pit.

Do you call it the "shit pit", because if not that seems like a huge missed opportunity.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lungs

Had to get him here before Donald gets that wall built. Judging by all the Nicaraguans up here, I'd think he could lighten the load on Mexico a little bit by making some of the Central American countries pitch in too.

Mexico extends all the way to Tierra del Fuego.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Source for that? I think the corporate tax rate is somewhat too high, but I'm not sure 15% is a better answer than 25 (current federal rate is 35%, and effective rate is closer to 27, which is a different issue), and you'd need a lot of businesses moving listed HQ's back to the US to increase GDP that much. (I also assume you mean taxable corporate income in the last sentence, not corporate tax income.) But there are also reasons beyond lower tax rates to charter a company or specific divisions in a different country.

I heard that the offshoring of money was one of the reasons for the Silicon Valley summit a couple of weeks ago. If Trump makes it advantageous to not horde money offshore, I'm sure companies like Apple ($181 billion) would be happy to move this money to the States.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Butter

Do you call it the "shit pit", because if not that seems like a huge missed opportunity.

Absolutely. It's never fun when a cow gets out and jumps into the shit pit.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mexico extends all the way to Tierra del Fuego.

I believe it includes Puerto Rico also.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so old I remember when the deficit actually mattered.

The new GOP budget in the Senate has the debt increasing over nine trillion dollars in the next decade. And this is with the assumption that the economy is booming.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I heard that the offshoring of money was one of the reasons for the Silicon Valley summit a couple of weeks ago. If Trump makes it advantageous to not horde money offshore, I'm sure companies like Apple ($181 billion) would be happy to move this money to the States.

Why? - because it makes them feel patriotic to have it in a US account?

The money exists and is happily sitting somewhere tax-free, making it tax-free elsewhere won't make Apple any money at all ... if they wanted to invest it in the US they would have done so already as there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.

As other people have mentioned unless the tax rate in the US is set effectively to 0% companies will continue to use their current loopholes to dodge paying any tax in other countries ... if the tax rate is set to 0% then obviously that won't provide any revenue at all to the economy.

The pretense that companies will bring their money back into the US is as fictitious as the concept that Trump is going to bring back coal mining jobs imho.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The new GOP budget in the Senate has the debt increasing over nine trillion dollars in the next decade. And this is with the assumption that the economy is booming.

Yep. It's a spending addiction that neither party has ever sought treatment for. They think 51/49% "mandate" (or in the latest election a 46/48 "mandate") means to spend away and as long as the D/R bickering "Your team did this..." "But you guys did this..." continues than soon maybe a million dollar retirement account might be enough to live on for 5-10 years.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

The money exists and is happily sitting somewhere tax-free, making it tax-free elsewhere won't make Apple any money at all ... if they wanted to invest it in the US they would have done so already as there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.

I always wonder what "invest it in the US" means. Like Walmart, mentioned upstream. How are companies investing in anything if they're sitting on that much money? The Walton kids have what, $30B each? Where did that come from? How is that "invested?"

Not that there's really anything for them to spend $100B, $180B on.


edit: yes, Walmart employs people. But only because they have to to make and sell their stuff to make more money. I don't know that this is really an investment, as much as a biproduct.

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking of that swamp draining...

Log In - New York Times

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he planned to nominate Jay Clayton, a partner with the prominent New York law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, the latest appointment with strong ties to Wall Street.

An adviser to Goldman Sachs, Mr. Clayton would join several Wall Street alumni in serving in Mr. Trump’s administration.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Speaking of that swamp draining...

Log In - New York Times

Like Elena Kagan?

So tired of the D's bickering about "draining the swamp" or the R's about a Obama's pledge for "An open and transparent government". Get your heads of your butts both sides are dirty as hell and part of the plutocracy. Everything you complain about has been done and over and over by every administration. Give it a rest unless you really intend to vote for somebody who will do something different. And sorry ISiddiqui but Hillary Clinton was not something different.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not that there's really anything for them to spend $100B, $180B on.

You clearly underestimate what can be done with a little imagination.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You clearly underestimate what can be done with a little imagination and an acute predilection for women and blow

Fixed

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Speaking of that swamp draining...

What if draining the swamp means something different? This is from WaPo in an article about Alexander Dugin, who is very close to Putin:

In one of his latest public addresses, Dugin insisted that “draining the swamp” is “the most important geopolitical and political concept” after Trump’s win. He believes that for Trump, the “swamp is a globalism, liberalism, the rule of transnational corporations, aggressive foreign policy … the global network of corruption, liberalism, sectarian ideologies of LGBT, civil society and human rights.”

Dugin sees all this as global corruption and perversion, as the globalism that he opposes. He believes that Trump does as well.

Dugin’s analysis ended by emphasizing that “now we, the supporters of Putin and Trump, enemies of the Swamp, and Soros, we must act with determination. We have no time at all. Cleansing of swamp networks and structures should be carried out radically and without delay. While Trump is with us.”

[ISiddiqui]

That isn't though what was sold to the voters. It was usually sold with the "look at all these Goldman Sachs ties my opponent has".

[digamma]

The SEC appointment is actually maybe Trump's best selection. The SEC has gotten badly bogged down in the last several years, stemming in part from gigantic rulemaking process it was tasked with in Dodd-Frank and in part from the egg on its face from the Madoff scandal (among other things). Someone with a commercial background would actually be a welcome change at the head of the organization.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You clearly underestimate what can be done with a little imagination.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fixed

I mean, I thought about buying your own island and hiring your own army/navy/henchmen (or a few henchwomen) and all, but speaking practically.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow, looks like this has bipartisan support. Would be huge to see this amendment pass.

US Lawmakers Introduce Amendment to Limit Congressional Terms

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Wow, looks like this has bipartisan support. Would be huge to see this amendment pass.

US Lawmakers Introduce Amendment to Limit Congressional Terms

As an aside, do you normally read Sputnik News?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As an aside, do you normally read Sputnik News?

Only for my Ted Cruz and Russian Hacking news.

[ISiddiqui]

It likely isn't a good source for Russian Hacking news as it's a government owned propaganda arm.

Kremlin’s ‘Sputnik’ Newswire Is the BuzzFeed of Propaganda | Foreign Policy

Sputnik: Propaganda in Orbit | CEPA

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It likely isn't a good source for Russian Hacking news as it's a government owned propaganda arm.

Kremlin’s ‘Sputnik’ Newswire Is the BuzzFeed of Propaganda | Foreign Policy

Sputnik: Propaganda in Orbit | CEPA

I don't think there's anything misrepresented, is there? This is a pretty cut and dried topic. It's an amendment. It's going to a vote.

I get it, you're bored.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think there's anything misrepresented, is there? This is a pretty cut and dried topic. It's an amendment. It's going to a vote.

I get it, you're bored.

You seriously don't think linking a state controlled, Russian media site as a source for US news should be grounds for someone giving you shit in this thread?

[JPhillips]

In Russia, Sputnik News reads you!

and this proposed amendment will never see the light of day. There's no way 2/3rds of the congress is going to vote to limit their own power. But I suppose Cruz has to do something to make himself relevant again.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That isn't though what was sold to the voters. It was usually sold with the "look at all these Goldman Sachs ties my opponent has".

Yep, but providing Trump a narrative to redefine what he meant by publically playing to his ego? Certainly Trump wouldn't be so easily coerced by the Russians in such a way....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think there's anything misrepresented, is there? This is a pretty cut and dried topic. It's an amendment. It's going to a vote.

Are you confused by what the phrase "As an aside" means?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Wow, looks like this has bipartisan support. Would be huge to see this amendment pass.

US Lawmakers Introduce Amendment to Limit Congressional Terms

A misbegotten idea borne of seriously overestimating the number of qualified & capable people available for the job.

We don't have a surplus of Congressmen worth a damn, we have a shortage. Removing those against the will of their voters is Cat5 shitty idea.

[Edward64]

Trumpcare has a nice ring to it. Looking forward to the final GOP plan that they will propose.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/politi...are/index.html

President Barack Obama delivered a mandate to Democrats on Wednesday: "Don't rescue" Republicans on Obamacare.

Less than three weeks out from leaving the White House, Obama visited Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill with a mission to save his signature healthcare reform law as Republicans are moving quickly to unroll the Affordable Care Act.

In the closed-door meeting, the President urged fellow Democrats to not "rescue" Republicans by helping them pass replacement measures, according to sources in the room.

He also floated this idea: Start referring to the GOP's new plan as "Trumpcare."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A misbegotten idea borne of seriously overestimating the number of qualified & capable people available for the job.

We don't have a surplus of Congressmen worth a damn, we have a shortage. Removing those against the will of their voters is Cat5 shitty idea.

It's not often I agree with Jon, but I'm 100% with him here. Term limits will actually have the opposite effect many think it will. Instead of long term crooks, you'll just have a revolving door of them, and they'll be even more beholden to special interests. Meanwhile, you'll get rid of the few good people we do have. It's up to the voters to limit terms.

[PilotMan]

I think the biggest question is, if a bear takes a dump in the forest will Trump take credit for it?

Unequivocally, the answer is yes.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Why? - because it makes them feel patriotic to have it in a US account?

The money exists and is happily sitting somewhere tax-free, making it tax-free elsewhere won't make Apple any money at all ... if they wanted to invest it in the US they would have done so already as there is nothing prohibiting them from doing so.

As other people have mentioned unless the tax rate in the US is set effectively to 0% companies will continue to use their current loopholes to dodge paying any tax in other countries ... if the tax rate is set to 0% then obviously that won't provide any revenue at all to the economy.

The pretense that companies will bring their money back into the US is as fictitious as the concept that Trump is going to bring back coal mining jobs imho.

That is the predictable race to the bottom that globalization opponents fear, but Trump's nationalist rhetoric is actually exceeding my expectations and will help, at least in the short term. There is a PR value to being perceived to align more with consumers values, and not all Fortune 500 companies are run by complete sociopaths. (How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. and all that). It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle, buf I do agree there is a percentage of their potential profits Apple would be willing to give up to "do the right thing" and the people that run it do have SOME patriotism (or sense of shame as the public outcry increases). Just like Republican congressmen did a quick about face when attention was focused on their shady attempt to neuter the House Ethics Committee.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Speaking of that swamp draining...

Log In - New York Times

Originally Posted by digamma

The SEC appointment is actually maybe Trump's best selection. The SEC has gotten badly bogged down in the last several years, stemming in part from gigantic rulemaking process it was tasked with in Dodd-Frank and in part from the egg on its face from the Madoff scandal (among other things). Someone with a commercial background would actually be a welcome change at the head of the organization.

I don't know enough about Clayton in particular, but I'm with digamma on this one (though I really like Mattis, Kelly & Priebus in his specific role too)... Give me someone with demonstable competence and knowledge of the field over a complete outsider please. The idea of "the Swamp" to me is nominating political insiders like Rick Perry or Jeff Sessions to positions they clearly have little knowledge of.

[JPhillips]

House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to a $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

The Holman Rule, named after an Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill that targets a specific government employee or program.

Luckily this could never be abused.

[cartman]

How would that not be considered a Bill of Attainder if it targets an individual person?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I mean, I thought about buying your own island and hiring your own army/navy/henchmen (or a few henchwomen) and all, but speaking practically.

Not every day I see a word used on FOFC and can reliably call from a mile away "nobody has ever used that exact word here before." Well done, sir.

[ISiddiqui]

Van Susteren to MSNBC is official as well:

Greta Van Susteren to join MSNBC - POLITICO

That's two high profile former FOX News correspondents signed by NBC. Maybe NBC News is thinking about having MSNBC doing a turn to the right. Interesting.

[cuervo72]

[cuervo72]

(Or the one who flies planes if you prefer.)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

How would that not be considered a Bill of Attainder if it targets an individual person?

It isn't about Bill, it's just my deeply held conservative belief that the second deputy clerk for administration should only make 10 dollars.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Senate votes 51-48 to repeal Obamacare.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c46412...peal-obamacare

[JPhillips]

That headline is way off. The vote was to approve budget reconciliation for the committees when writing legislation regarding ACA. They can't repeal Obamacare without 60 votes, but it looks like they're going to pick the worst option and cut funding while leaving all the regulations in place.

[digamma]

I don't even think it was that, if it was yesterday's vote. It was just to start debate on the budget resolution.

[JPhillips]

Kudos to Rand Paul for being the last Republican that still cares about the deficit. He couldn't get a single other member to vote against a resolution that proposes over nine trillion in new debt over the next decade.

The next time a Dem is in office I hope we can stop pretending that the GOP cares about anything other than lower taxes on the top earners.

[cuervo72]

Well, they might care about running anyone out of the gov't who happens to disagree with them, too.

House Republicans revive obscure rule that allows them to slash the pay of individual federal workers to $1 - The Washington Post

[cuervo72]

Also:

Fla. AG who received illegal donation from Trump may get WH job | TheHill

(really surprised it took THAT long)

[RainMaker]

Republicans went from fighting against foreign adversaries like Russia to now spreading their propaganda websites online.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In Russia, Sputnik News reads you!

and this proposed amendment will never see the light of day. There's no way 2/3rds of the congress is going to vote to limit their own power. But I suppose Cruz has to do something to make himself relevant again.

They did for the line-item veto, when Republicans gave it to Bill Clinton because they thought it was the right thing to do. Then Congress voluntarily weakened themselves, and not in a time of war or crisis, to strengthen America.

[JPhillips]

I think the difference is that eventually the GOP would be in the White House, so it was a long term solution to implement policy that would otherwise require tricky votes. In essence, the Congress got something. With term limits, what do they get?