DOJ sues Virginia for removing non citizens from the voter rolls

[MajarTheLion]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

The point of my last point is that you can't just arbitrarily decide to charge government an arm and a leg.  Have you heard of the GSA schedules?  No, F-35s don't appear on the GSA schedule, but a lot of things do.

Government pays too much for stuff. That's simple reality.

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

So all we need is a private developer for F-35 combat fighters... problem solved!  Lockheed Martin is already a private company.  What exactly do you mean by "private developer" and how can you be sure that it would have the investment capital, technology and human resources needed for such huge megaprojects that are typically needed by the federal government?

No. You appear to have misunderstood my comment. I am scrutinizing the process. Government has no incentive to keep costs low. Quite the opposite. The system is flawed in that regard.

 

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

Tort reform in Texas had no impact on healthcare costs.  There were a lot fewer lawsuits, as expected, but healthcare costs didn't go down.  Gee I wonder where all those "savings" went.  This is good evidence that, in a profit-driven healthcare system, cost reductions don't always get passed on to the consumer.

 

Another fascinating comment. Do you realize how many of the hospitals that gouge patients are "non-profit"? Do you think "non-profit" equals less expensive? I could start a "non-profit" and give myself an obscene salary. So what? And besides, what's wrong with making a profit anyway? Many medical advances come as a result of the profit motive. I assume you work for a living. Do you like to make a profit doing so? Why should anyone else not have the same right you've reserved for yourself?

 

You claim tort reform in Texas had no impact on healthcare costs. I found this in 30 seconds:

 

Indeed, evidence of HB4’s success is everywhere. For instance:

• CHRISTUS Health, a not-for-profit Catholic health system with hospitals throughout Texas, saved so much on its liability costs that it expanded its charity care by $100 million per year starting in 2004. Total cost-basis charity care in Texas was $594 million greater in 2006 than it was in 2003.[16] Sister Michele O’Brien of CHRISTUS stated that the expanded charity care is a direct result of the lawsuit reforms.[17]
• Texas Children’s Hospital is completing a multibillion-dollar expansion that it could not have undertaken without the lawsuit reforms in HB4.[18] This expansion is just in health care facilities and does not include the increased number of physicians, nurses, and support staff that accompany such a huge hardscape build-out. In fact, the total health care facilities expansion in the state attributable to HB4 exceeds $10 billion.[19] While the numbers have been impressive, even more impressive is the impact this has had on patients.
• Individuals have seen their lives improve as well. Consider the case of George Rodriguez, a man who lives in Corpus Christi, a city that did not have a neurosurgeon before HB4. One day, suffering from back pain, Mr. Rodriguez went to the emergency room and was seen by Dr. Matthew Alexander,[20] a neurosurgeon who had moved to Corpus Christi from out of state and had opened his practice one week beforehand specifically because of HB4. It turns out that Mr. Rodriguez had a spinal abscess, a life-threatening condition if not treated within the hour. Before Dr. Alexander opened his practice in Corpus Christi, a patient needing a neurosurgeon would be stabilized as best as possible and flown to Houston. The flight itself is about 45 minutes. In George Rodriguez’s case, there was no stabilizing option: He would have died or been permanently crippled unless he received immediate treatment. Fortunately, Dr. Alexander was there to operate on Mr. Rodriguez, thereby saving his life. Though Mr. Rodriguez still has a limp, he is, like many other patients in Texas, a big supporter of HB4.

http://www.heritage.org/report/ten-years-tort-reform-texas-review

 

[thaibeachlovers]

It's  at Mar-a-Lago tonight .

For a guy that was supposed not to be able to pass any legislation he's not doing too badly.

[MajarTheLion]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's  at Mar-a-Lago tonight .

For a guy that was supposed not to be able to pass any legislation he's not doing too badly.

Trump has no chance of winning in 2016. All the *experts* say so. In addition to the victory on the tax cuts, some of the other stuff has been easy. Executive orders, I've been told by a *wise man*, are simply a matter of having a phone and a pen. What can be done by executive order can also be undone by executive order.

[Nowisee]

If anyone is interested or even cares:

To the relief of many in the financial services industry, including investors, the [mandatory] FIFO rule was excluded from the final version of the hotly contested tax reform bill delivered Friday evening.

 

Edited December 23, 2017 by Nowisee

[ilostmypassword]

Trump is so concerned about the plight of working AMericans that the Labor Dept. is now proposing a rule change that would allow restaurant owners to do what they like with tips if the waiters are paid minimum wage.. They would be under no obligation to share tips with the employees. The ostensible reason the Labor dept. provides is that it would allow employers to share tips with cooks and other restaurant employees. Except that the proposed regulation says nothing about this. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Trump owns several restaurants as part of his hotel business?

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

For a guy that was supposed not to be able to pass any legislation he's not doing too badly.

 

At this rate, by the end of his term he will have gotten about 398 things accomplished as long as you count playing golf 394 times as an accomplishment.  Way to go.

 

http://trumpgolfcount.com/

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

Trump has no chance of winning in 2016. All the *experts* say so.

 

Which experts were those?  Care to name a few?  Any why even bring this up in this discussion?

[thaibeachlovers]

44 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Trump is so concerned about the plight of working AMericans that the Labor Dept. is now proposing a rule change that would allow restaurant owners to do what they like with tips if the waiters are paid minimum wage.. They would be under no obligation to share tips with the employees. The ostensible reason the Labor dept. provides is that it would allow employers to share tips with cooks and other restaurant employees. Except that the proposed regulation says nothing about this. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Trump owns several restaurants as part of his hotel business?

You are apparently implying that Trump, a billionaire, is using the government of the USA to pass legislation that will allow him to keep the tips in his restaurants.

.

Edited December 23, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Thaidream]

I need to correct some misconceptions here-

A.   American Net Worth-  the figures presented include all assets to include a home- most retirees have worked all their lives and may have a home that is fully paid for but most have very little cash assets.  The average Social Security payment is about $1350. per month- hardly putting the elderly in the wealth classification.  in addition- social security retirees don't get pay raises every year like the military and other federal employees yet healthcare costs go up drastically every year.

 

B.  Medicare is free only if one is hospitalized- it is not free for doctor visits; eye glasses; dental work or  medicines. Medicare Part B will cover certain doctor visits but approx $140 per month is deducted from the entitlement leaving the recipient the remainder. If one wants more coverage, they have to buy a private insurance program.    Medicare pays nothing for people overseas even though we contributed at 1.45% of our salary for decades and the Us Government will not give that portion back.

 

Actually, Social Security and Medicare are government programs that work- payments made on time every time.  The Us Government would be smart to allow Americans to use Medicare overseas since the costs are much lower.

 

It should also be noted Social Security is funded by a percentage taken out of a American's salary each pay period and sent to the Social Security Administration. However, any person making over $110,000 per year does not have to pay Social Security taxes over that amount- yet they can receive full benefit when they die. Simply taxing the full amount of any person's income will stabilize the Social Security Fund forever.

 

C.  Healthcare-  Americans need to stop thinking healthcare is a privilege- It is a human right and every industrialized nation provides universal healthcare to its citizens except one country- the USA.  Amereicans are the only people who literally can go broke; lose their home and savings due to the cost of healthcare in the US.  While healthcare in America is good- it is way overpriced due to the insidious relationship between Insurance Companies; doctors/hospitals and Big Pharma.  Government funded healthcare does away with Insurance Companies and forces doctors/hospitals and drug companies to lower prices for everyone.

 

D.  Tax Bill-  Bad for the poor and middle class/ Good for the wealthy and Corporations-

Trump's tax bill does nothing for the poor and middle class because they will see a minimal amount of gain from this bill- approx $2.50 per day on average.  The wealth will see huge benefits in actual cash and the corporates will see huge gains. There is probably  $2Trillion parked offshore and will be brought back- but I seriously doubt much of this will be used to build more plants; increase more jobs or increase salaries. I expect most of the money to go to CEOs and stockholders.

 

If Trump really wanted to help lower income Amereicans- he should have raised the taxes on millionaires and paid middle and poor people a tax credit of $20K- a check directly to them. This would have cost millionaires approximately $200K each but they would still be millionaires but the $20 K to the middle class and poor would be spent immediately on goods and services raising the GPD quickly .

 

Part of all the tax cuts and universal medical care would be paid off the backs of the wealthy (instead of the reverse) In addition, the defense budget and intelligence budgets can be lowered by at least 30%;  Government departments closed and/or merged for huge savings; foreign aid slashed.

 

Do not believe Donald Trump and his Republican minions that somehow the income from the wealthy will trickle down and help the middle class and the poor. It has never happened and will never happen. The wealthy ; Corporations and business in general follow the mandate based upon the philosophy that greed is good and will not willingly part with much of anything.  The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans in that they see social programs as the answer to everything without any budget reform.

 

There is a third way and that is  amendments to the Us Constitution- in which an American President is limited to one 6 year term; Term limits on members of Congress and a mandated balanced national budget. 

 

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg- much more needs to be done to get America back on track but  neither a Donald Trump or a Hillary Clinton is the answer. Trump is the worst answer;  Hillary would hold to the status quo- and what America needs is another revolution with a complete new cast of characters.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are apparently implying that Trump, a billionaire, is using the government of the USA to pass legislation that will allow him to keep the tips in his restaurants.

.

Maybe the greasy spoons you eat at charge low prices. Or you're just a really cheap tipper. But in american the current tip average is about 18 percent. If you knew anything about the restaurant business, which clearly you don't, you'd know that 18 percent is a huge amount of money in a business that typically runs on low margin. Even if he doesn't keep all of it, whatever he keeps is gravy.

Come to think of it, an 18 percent addition or even a 5 percent addition to revenue without incurring additional expense is huge in any business. I don't know how you earn or earned your livelihood, but clearly it had nothing to do with numbers.

Edited December 23, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Thaidream]

As far as tips are concerned- most wait staff in restaurants are making the Federal minimum wage which is $7.25 per hour except in States that have their own minimum wage which is around $10 per hour.  Go ahead try and raise a family on those salaries.  The Trump Administration sees no need to raise the minimum wage- in fact Trump at one time proposed lowering it.

I can't imagine any restaurant being able to hire and keep adequate staff that refuses to allow the tips to go directly to their employees.  

The fact the the Trump Administration would even consider such a change in Labor Regs shows me he is completely out of touch with reality and could care less about the middle class and the poor.

The Trump Administration and his lackeys in the Government are one of the worst administrations in the history of government.

[lannarebirth]

11 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Trump is so concerned about the plight of working AMericans that the Labor Dept. is now proposing a rule change that would allow restaurant owners to do what they like with tips if the waiters are paid minimum wage.. They would be under no obligation to share tips with the employees. The ostensible reason the Labor dept. provides is that it would allow employers to share tips with cooks and other restaurant employees. Except that the proposed regulation says nothing about this. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Trump owns several restaurants as part of his hotel business?

 

All the Asian owned restaurants already do this.

[Dumbastheycome]

15 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

Frankly, I'd like to see programs like this shitcanned, along with Medicaid and Medicare. I don't see any reason why certain segments of the population should be given free healthcare when other segments are not. Give it to everyone or give it to no one.  Medicare makes the least sense of all giving the relative wealth of old people.

 

So  you  believe  that the  older  generation who  have  worked  and  saved to eventually eliminate  mortgages  and  debt in readiness  to  die after  paying  taxes on  that should  be shafted in  favour  of  the  aspiring  greed of  the  younger  grasping  generation/s ?

Interesting perspective  ! Especially  when  the   residue  of  that  median  worth  will  probably  pass  to that  younger  generation  anyway.. that is  of  course  if  the  wondrous  democratic   institution  does  not  legislate to   acquire  it in  the  interest  of   making  " A  a  Greater   Farce" !

 

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So  you  believe  that the  older  generation who  have  worked  and  saved to eventually eliminate  mortgages  and  debt in readiness  to  die after  paying  taxes on  that should  be shafted in  favour  of  the  aspiring  greed of  the  younger  grasping  generation/s ?

Interesting perspective  ! Especially  when  the   residue  of  that  median  worth  will  probably  pass  to that  younger  generation  anyway.. that is  of  course  if  the  wondrous  democratic   institution  does  not  legislate to   acquire  it in  the  interest  of   making  " A  a  Greater   Farce" !

 

 

Actually I think the older generation should receive healthcare along with everyone else. What I don't like and what creates divisions in society is when benefits accrue to certain segments of society and not others. Particularly when the benefits accruing to some are being paid for by those not eligible themselves.  There's no mystery why it is done this way. It creates divisiveness and therefore voting blocks. Democracy as practiced in the US is all about fragmenting society. It doesn't have to be.

 

As for denying seniors healthcare, I mentioned that because I think it would take all of a week before they would then see the reasonableness of providing the same level of healthcare to others if their own healthcare were at risk.

[Trouble]

17 hours ago, Ricardo said:

I'm not American, so don't have a dog in the political-race, but do wonder why taxes are being cut, when the US is running a fiscal-deficit ?  And how much credit can lobbying take for that ?

 

Is it because the economic-experts think more stimulus is still needed, to boost the feel-good factor & consumer-spending, I thought unemployment was now reasonably low & the economy growing at a reasonable rate already ? 

 

Or else why have the Fed felt able to finally start edging-up interest-rates at last, this year ?

 

With no major wars or disasters on-the-horizon, why isn't the US-government now starting to pay-down its outstanding debts, will the money returning from offshore & the one-off bonuses to the workers (and no doubt massively-bigger ones to the bosses too) really generate enough extra-activity & extra-tax to increase the overall tax-take enough to finally start to do that ?

 

I'd like to understand better, what's really going on here.

I generally tend to agree with you that what is needed is tax rates remaining the same and heavy reductions in spending. That would reduce deficits but might continue the economic stagnation we had in the Obama years. Seems like neither party is willing to tackle the really difficult problem there. 

 

Those favoring the tax cuts are of the opinion that the more money left in the hands of business and taxpayers the more it is used in the economy and thus stimulates growth. Those on the opposite side feel the government taxes and knows best how to spend the money. But what happens is that the government just keeps expanding itself into an even more bloated bureaucracy and of course funds more entitlement programs. It's just a massive redistribution of money.  After looking at the new tax rates for individuals there is no doubt that most middle class Americans ($38,000 to $90,000 in my opinion) will definitely pay less taxes.  Whether one believes the individual should be able to spend, save, or throw away the money or whether the government is the best judge of how to spend it is a question that often divides the left and right.  This new tax law appears to be generally good for the average tax payer (It will hurt me as I live in California were the deductibility of state income taxes and property taxes will now be limited).   

 

Bottom line is that it is hoped by many that this new tax bill  that it will stimulate growth of the economic engine which in turn will actually drive up taxes collected even if collected at a smaller percentage rates.  Whether in the end it will be successful, we will have to wait and see.  The Democrats seem to disavow this philosophy although there is an often quoted speech by John Kennedy about tax reductions which seems to agree with the current Republican philosophy although the times and context might not exactly be in alignment.  You are right however that nothing in this new tax bill does anything to reduce deficits.  Next step for Congress in January is to deal with the budget.  That will be another interesting battle. 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, Trouble said:

I generally tend to agree with you that what is needed is tax rates remaining the same and heavy reductions in spending. That would reduce deficits but might continue the economic stagnation we had in the Obama years. Seems like neither party is willing to tackle the really difficult problem there. 

 

Those favoring the tax cuts are of the opinion that the more money left in the hands of business and taxpayers the more it is used in the economy and thus stimulates growth. Those on the opposite side feel the government taxes and knows best how to spend the money. But what happens is that the government just keeps expanding itself into an even more bloated bureaucracy and of course funds more entitlement programs. It's just a massive redistribution of money.  After looking at the new tax rates for individuals there is no doubt that most middle class Americans ($38,000 to $90,000 in my opinion) will definitely pay less taxes.  Whether one believes the individual should be able to spend, save, or throw away the money or whether the government is the best judge of how to spend it is a question that often divides the left and right.  This new tax law appears to be generally good for the average tax payer (It will hurt me as I live in California were the deductibility of state income taxes and property taxes will now be limited).   

 

Bottom line is that it is hoped by many that this new tax bill  that it will stimulate growth of the economic engine which in turn will actually drive up taxes collected even if collected at a smaller percentage rates.  Whether in the end it will be successful, we will have to wait and see.  The Democrats seem to disavow this philosophy although there is an often quoted speech by John Kennedy about tax reductions which seems to agree with the current Republican philosophy although the times and context might not exactly be in alignment.  You are right however that nothing in this new tax bill does anything to reduce deficits.  Next step for Congress in January is to deal with the budget.  That will be another interesting battle. 

 

 

 

There is obviously a lower bound on tax rates whereby lesser taxation does not lead to greater growth. No one knows what it is however. The reduction in long term capital gains taxes to 20% has led to greater tax revenues from capital gains taxes. Whether that is the lower limit of that relationship no one knows. Same goes for ordinary income taxes.

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There is obviously a lower bound on tax rates whereby lesser taxation does not lead to greater growth. No one knows what it is however. The reduction in long term capital gains taxes to 20% has led to greater tax revenues from capital gains taxes. Whether that is the lower limit of that relationship no one knows. Same goes for ordinary income taxes.

Actually, there is very good data on the effects of of lower taxation. As for the reduction in capital gains leading to more revenues - that only works in the short term when potential gains that have been held onto are cashed in to capitalize on the lower rates. In the medium and long run, it leads to losses in revenue.As for the relationship of cuts to ordinary taxes, there is a huge amount of date and studies showing that reductions in income taxes lead to reductions in revenue. Over and over and over again supply side theory has been shown to be nonsense. Remember the Bush tax cuts? All they did was lead to stock buybacks, increased dividends, and the hedge fund mortgage backed CDO disaster. There was a huge loss of revenue and no increase in business investment.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, there is very good data on the effects of of lower taxation. As for the reduction in capital gains leading to more revenues - that only works in the short term when potential gains that have been held onto are cashed in to capitalize on the lower rates. In the medium and long run, it leads to losses in revenue.As for the relationship of cuts to ordinary taxes, there is a huge amount of date and studies showing that reductions in income taxes lead to reductions in revenue. Over and over and over again supply side theory has been shown to be nonsense. Remember the Bush tax cuts? All they did was lead to stock buybacks, increased dividends, and the hedge fund mortgage backed CDO disaster. There was a huge loss of revenue and no increase in business investment.

 

I missed the entire Bush 43 presidency. Saw him speak once in 8 years.  It was bliss.  

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I missed the entire Bush 43 presidency. Saw him speak once in 8 years.  It was bliss.  

And I forgot to mention the most glaring recent case of supply side voodoo: Kansas. That worked out well.

[FritsSikkink]

Good luck with your new tax law:

 

 

[bristolboy]

Remember how the tax bill was supposed to lead to a surge in investment?

It hasn't.

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2018/03/what-are-businesses-saying-about-tax-reform-now.html

[MajarTheLion]

On 4/30/2018 at 8:55 PM, bristolboy said:

Remember how the tax bill was supposed to lead to a surge in investment?

It hasn't.

http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2018/03/what-are-businesses-saying-about-tax-reform-now.html

Wow! Five whole months and no results! Seriously?

[Dumbastheycome]

The  reality is  that despite the presumption stock market levels and  other  deceptive corporate data  being an indicator  of  the  health of an economy it  fails to compensate  for the  general populace  who  continue to suffer the impact  of  economic  marginalisation. 

It is  an inevitable outcome of  the progressive credit based  consumerist  society  the  world  has  been  dupe  into.

In any  geographical location  where the proposed concept  of  removing or limiting cheap, albeit  illegal, labour as a means to  increase  employment and therefore financial security for  the  legitimate  populace is  farcical.

Corporate  interest in  in at least  maintaining if  not  increasing  profit  does  not include any interest  in  geographical  populace.

It is  that  and  basically that alone that continues to erode the quality of  life for  an increasing  number in the western world while at the  same time   has  seen  dramatic advancement in  what are deemed to  be  "developing"  countries.

China bounded  up  the  economic  ladder purely  on  the  basis  of  supplying   corporate greed. It  surpassed  the previous "Made  in Japan, Made in  Taiwan,Made  in Korea, Made in India, Mae  in  Vietnam, Made in ? " by  committing   to   supply for  the demand at  the  specifications  requested. And  those  specs  were/are abominable! 

yet China by  virtue  of  that  supply  to  demand has  effectively acquired technilogical  acumen , initiative  to  advance  that technology,  economic bonanza, political clout.

It is  that  last  factor  that  is  what  it is all about. 

Have an economy that  is  genuine,  have   political clout  that is  genuine.

Trump  has   been  the  greatest  detractor  to the   genuosity of  the USA in  all of its relatively  short  history as a  nation. And  those  who  were came  before  and  now   cling  to  the   fading   coat tail?

Reap as  you  sow..

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, MajarTheLion said:

Wow! Five whole months and no results! Seriously?

Yes seriously. It shouldn't take so long to make investments. To see the result of those investments is another matter. In fact, with interest rates very low, there was no need at all to lower tax rates to encourage corporations to repatriate funds. Apple just repatriated 100 billion dollars. And promptly put it all into stock buybacks. Very little of all that repatriated money has gone to increasing workers' pay or increasing investments. Most of it has gone to stock buybacks and increased dividends. Just the same as when George Bush got his tax cuts on the basis of increased investment and increased pay.