|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 30 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:
Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't.
Do you expect Trump to do well on the national debt?
|
On November 30 2016 22:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:
Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't. Do you expect Trump to do well on the national debt?
Nope.
|
On November 30 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:
Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't.
Oh, you mean only corporate tax rates?
Yeah that's actually true (hey you learn something every day): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdf
France, 33%
USA, 35%
That's surprisingly high. Actually both of those rates are absurdly high compared to the rest of the world, damn.
|
Any talk of tax rates without discussing effective tax rates, corporate tax expenditure deductions, and the like is pretty useless, I think. Bringing down the overall rate is a good idea so long as it comes alongside additional reform, and that additional reform is where the devil is.
|
On November 30 2016 23:01 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:
Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't. Oh, you mean only corporate tax rates? Yeah that's actually true (hey you learn something every day): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdfFrance, 33% USA, 35% That's surprisingly high. Actually both of those rates are absurdly high compared to the rest of the world, damn.
It is a very high nominal rate; but the bigger and unsettled question is what the effective tax rates are.
In the US there's a LOT of tax breaks and incentives handled out.
Estimates vary, and it's hard to measure of course. Looking around a bit, some are saying the overall effective rate in the US is ~27%
though for some of the big multinationals it seems to be markedly less than that, at least according to some accounting methods.
|
A blueprint that Trump will copy:
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory's (R) office on Tuesday rejected three of the four outside lawyers that the state board of elections sought to hire to defend the board in a lawsuit regarding same-day registration.
The rejection from McCrory's general counsel will delay the trial originally set for Friday for a lawsuit from a conservative group demanding that the elections board delay certifying the vote until the board has completed a lengthy process to verify the registrations of voters who registered on the same day they voted.
The state elections board submitted a request to hire outside lawyers since state Attorney General Roy Cooper, who would typically defend the board, is locked in a contested race for governor with McCrory. McCrory has refused to concede the race and has alleged widespread voter fraud in the state, though the state election board effectively dismissed most of Republicans' complaints about alleged voter fraud on Monday.
McCrory's general counsel, Bob Stephens, accepted the state board's request to hire lawyer Thomas Ziko, but rejected the request to hire three attorneys with the Brooks Pierce law firm, according to WRAL. Stephens rejected the three lawyers after asking to check for any conflicts of interest, according to the News and Observer. Stephens did not say why he rejected the three lawyers from Brooks Pierce.
"The notification we received gives no legal basis for the denial of the Brooks Pierce lawyers," Joshua Malcolm, a Democratic member of the state board of elections, told WRAL.
The News and Observer noted that a lawyer at Brooks Pierce, Jim Phillips, is a co-chairman of Cooper's transition team, but Phillips was not one of the three attorneys that the state board sought to hire.
Kim Strach, the director of the state elections board, told the News and Observer that "no legal conflict exists" with the lawyers from Brooks Pierce.
"The attorneys from Brooks Pierce chosen to represent the State Board are well-versed in election laws in North Carolina. The board received assurance that appropriate firewalls would be erected to ensure Jim Phillips was screened from any matters related to this representation," she said.
Josh Lawson, the state board's staff attorney, warned that the rejection of outside attorneys could put the state board at a disadvantage in the case.
"I believe the defense of our agency will be materially prejudiced absent immediate action to secure additional representation in this case," Lawson wrote in a letter to the state elections board.
Lawson asked for a one-day extension for the board to submit its response, and U.S. District Court Judge James Dever granted the extension on Wednesday. The hearing was moved to Dec. 8.
Source
|
On November 30 2016 23:26 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 23:01 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 30 2016 22:45 Incognoto wrote:On November 30 2016 13:04 xDaunt wrote:
Trump hasn't given up anything yet. And if the price is lowering corporate tax rates, that should have happened years ago. Our current corporate tax rates are idiotically high. You should see how it is in France. Your corporate taxes are quite low. Yes, I get that there are some countries out there are more insane than we are when it comes to overall tax burdens. But I'm pretty sure that we're higher than you unless you have some extra corporate taxes that we don't. Oh, you mean only corporate tax rates? Yeah that's actually true (hey you learn something every day): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/dttl-tax-corporate-tax-rates.pdfFrance, 33% USA, 35% That's surprisingly high. Actually both of those rates are absurdly high compared to the rest of the world, damn. It is a very high nominal rate; but the bigger and unsettled question is what the effective tax rates are. In the US there's a LOT of tax breaks and incentives handled out. Estimates vary, and it's hard to measure of course. Looking around a bit, some are saying the overall effective rate in the US is ~27% though for some of the big multinationals it seems to be markedly less than that, at least according to some accounting methods.
Big multinationals don't pay corporate taxes in the US anyway. They all use shitty constructions like the Dutch sandwich. Although with the EU clamping down on these constructions in Europe, the future looks dodgy. Then again, I'm sure some tiny pacific island will step up to the plate to be the next letterbox corporate headquarter haven.
|
Meanwhile, in Texas...
Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass.
State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final
|
On November 30 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote:Meanwhile, in Texas... Show nested quote +Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass. State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final
This is horrifying. I just don't get it, do those people think it's fun to abort? Women i know who went through that are marked for life by the experience. Let's damage people more by traumatizing them and adding to the guilt. I mean if you can fuck up people, whydontcha?
And they are the same who say they'll get the gvt out your back. Talk of consistency.
There is very little to like about the states those days :-(
|
On November 30 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote:Meanwhile, in Texas... Show nested quote +Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass. State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final
Wat?
I mean, at least be consistent. If the fetus is a human, it should be a human regardless of whether the fetus is aborted due to miscarriage, coat hanger or a clinic performing the abortion. Worded as it is it is just way too obvious that this is ONLY intended to place greater burdens on abortions, with no care for hipocrisy.
|
On December 01 2016 00:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote:Meanwhile, in Texas... Despite emotional public hearings, roughly 35,000 comments, and major pushback from pro-choice advocates, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission finalized a new rule on Monday that would require women to bury or cremate fetal tissue after their abortion or miscarriage, rather than deposit them in sanitary sewers and medical-waste landfills.
The rule, initially drafted under the radar in July, is set to take effect on Dec. 19 (in 20 days).
During public hearings in August and November, anti-abortion activists – often using loaded and graphic language – praised the rule as a measure that promotes “dignity” and “respect” for the unborn, without pointing to any evidence of the rule’s medical necessity. Pro-choice advocates relayed their personal experiences with abortion and miscarriage and stressed the new rule would serve to shame abortion-seeking women in Texas, add financial barriers to abortion, and further restrict access. Nonpartisan medical organizations, the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, have questioned the rule and its cost burden. According to estimates from the Funeral Consumers Alliance of Texas, the rule could add $2,000 to the price of abortion care, and since the state has refused to pick up any of the tab, the cost burden falls on providers, and then down to patients.
HHSC spokesperson Carrie Williams says after listening to public comment, the commission changed rule language to make clear the regulation doesn’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home. It also added language clarifying that the issuance of death and birth certificates isn’t required. However, those changes may not be enough for the anti-choice rule to withstand a constitutional challenge following the summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Legal groups argue the regulation is wholly unnecessary, fails to advance any health or safety benefit, and increases the procedure's cost, which poses an undue burden on abortion access. (Sound familiar?) The ACLU of Texas and the Center for Reproductive Rights have hinted at a potential lawsuit should the rule officially pass. State Health Department Makes Fetal Tissue Rule Final This is horrifying. I just don't get it, do those people think it's fun to abort? Women i know who went through that are marked for life by the experience. Let's damage people more by traumatizing them and adding to the guilt. I mean if you can fuck up people, whydontcha? And they are the same who say they'll get the gvt out your back. Talk of consistency. There is very little to like about the states those days :-(
I don't know them that well, so it's hard to comment accurately. a few of them may think such crazy things.
I can only try to give a few bits and pieces I've gleaned from waht I've heard, which may not be that reliable on their motives.
Many of them consider abortion to be murder; or something similarly bad and horrific, and will use many means to try to prevent it.
For awhile now, the basic plan for some of these groups, since they can't ban abortion directly, is to try to make abortion as hard as possible, generally using regulations that don't sound super-unreasonable on their face but don't actually accomplish anything other than make it hard to get an abortion. They like trying to slip them in undre the radar unnoticed as well.
If you consider something to be a horrible crime, i'ts not surprising you'd go to great lengths to try to stop it.
|
At what point in time does it go from medical procedure to murder?
|
Not saying a strict law to bury the fetal tissue is in any way the right way to go about it, but studies and personal experience have shown, that people who "lose their baby" (abortion or not) and have a burial ceremony tend to cope better and are less traumatized. So there is some merit in promoting having a good-bye with that part of you.But obviously u shouldnt be forced to do it...
User was warned for this post
|
On December 01 2016 00:27 Incognoto wrote:
At what point in time does it go from medical procedure to murder?
My thought process:
1. If humanity was derived from our flesh, we wouldn't kill animals
2. If flesh is not the defining character of humanity, consciousness must be
3. Extinguishing a consciousness is murder
4. Abortion is only murder when a consciousness is extinguished
Edit: And from there, I defer to neuroscience to determine when a human consciousness is formed as a part of human development.
|
On December 01 2016 00:56 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
Not saying a strict law to bury the fetal tissue is in any way the right way to go about it, but studies and personal experience have shown, that people who "lose their baby" (abortion or not) and have a burial ceremony tend to cope better and are less traumatized. So there is some merit in promoting having a good-bye with that part of you.But obviously u shouldnt be forced to do it...
how is that relevant at all?
|
On December 01 2016 00:27 Incognoto wrote:
At what point in time does it go from medical procedure to murder?
You mean at what point in time in the development process?
There is no single clear correct answer.
there are several beliefs and standards used by different people; as well as used by various legal codes now and in the past.
I don't know all of them off-hand, but I could come up with a primer of a few basic standards used if you want.
there's some rather long discussions in the field of ethics on the topic.
|
The outgoing director of the CIA has warned of disastrous consequences if Donald Trump goes ahead with his threat of tearing up the US deal with Iran over nuclear weapons.
In an unusually frank interview with the BBC, John Brennan said Trump’s opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran was the “height of folly”.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Brennan said: “I think it would be disastrous, it really would: for one administration to tear up an agreement that a previous administration made would be almost unprecedented.”
Spelling out the dangers, the US intelligence chief added: “It could lead to a weapons programme inside of Iran that could lead other states in the region to embark on their own programmes with military conflict, so I think it would be the height of folly if the next administration were to tear up that agreement.”
Brennan also expressed alarm about many of the key foreign policy pledges made by Trump during his election campaign, including the president-elect’s admiration for Vladimir Putin, his anti-Islamic rhetoric and his willingness to use torture.
He said that in Syria, Russia and the Assad regime were responsible for “wanton slaughter of civilians that is ... nothing short of outrageous”.
Brennan said he hoped for an improvement in relations between Washington and Moscow, but urged Trump to be careful of cosying up to Putin.
He said: “Russia is a country that will pursue its national interests frequently to the detriment of the interests of the peoples of the countries wherein it operates. So I think President-elect Trump and the new administration need to be wary of Russian promises. Russian promises have not given us what it is they have pledged.”
He also warned Trump not to reintroduce waterboarding and other interrogation techniques as he has threatened. And he revealed that he would disobey orders if Trump ordered him to use waterboarding, and that most in the agency were also opposed.
Source
|
Yeah I meant development process.
Mohdoo with your definition you could get rid of the baby as long as it's unborn. ;/
|
So is Hillary done with politics, or is she just still sulking? She's been practically silent on anything of note for almost a month now.
|
On November 30 2016 17:48 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. What could possibly have made you think that there were 3 bullets in his gun?
We were talking about how Trump was always and still remains a dice roll on good policies and following through. The difference was that Clinton was a known quantity, a bad decision-maker provably over and over again. So I'd rather not pick the loaded gun playing general election roulette. That was my standpoint, but perhaps you're pure sarcasm here.
On November 30 2016 22:45 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2016 15:32 Danglars wrote:On November 30 2016 09:17 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, reports are rolling in that Trump picked Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary. That's far more worrisome for Trump supporters than Chao. It's the one-two whammy. Make Goldman Sachs Great Again, Make the Establishment Great Again. I knew I voted for only a chance to reform Washington and the rest; I think Ramirez's comic showing Russian Roulette with 3 bullets (Trump) and 6 bullets (Clinton) was apropos. And let me be clear: Flynn/Sessions/Pompeo are outstanding picks and I salute Trump for making them. His latest ones are awful. Everyone I hear under consideration for SoS is awful. It has all the makings of waiting four or eight years to try to get another in the White House that will get the bureaucracy under control again. On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture. It says things about Trump's cabinet search that words simply cannot lol. ![[image loading]](http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/article_images/trumpromney_112916getty_0.jpg?itok=-Epz8JNo) Wait sam!dzat joins kwark posting through others? I seriously expected a third throwaway account and not this kind of tomfoolery. Wait there are people that think Flynn and Sessions are good? I don't want either of them anywhere near a government office.
I broadly agree with their political positions and think they'll fight for their beliefs about how government should be run. Particularly the state of the justice department, the civil rights division, and the thrust of what it's been doing under Holder & Lynch. We had a lot of discussion about Sessions' controversial racial talk, but remember he was appointed by Reagan as US Attorney Southern District AL and had twelve years experience there. One big issue backdrop for this appointment is sanctuary cities violating federal law and deportation of criminal aliens that's been sketchy under the Obama administration. A second issue would be overseeing the conduct of DOJ investigations into police departments accused of discriminatory policing.
So I'm enthusiastic about those three picks, and disgusted by Chao/Mnunchin, as well as unhappy about the names proposed thus far for the SoS position. Like LegalLord pointed out, the other option was Clinton naming people to these positions, which would mean nobody I prefer in any admin position. Conservatives don't have a lot of pressure to exert because Trump was elected on largely un-conservative policy positions, so we'll have to see how it plays out with Tea Party congressmen opposing spending proposals and if they can extract policy concessions in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
