US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7202

During her rant, Pirro insisted that she “certainly” hadn’t spoken to the president “about any of this,” despite Trump’s earlier tweet.

"No one expected a businessman to completely understand the nuances, the complicated ins and outs of Washington and its legislative process. How would he know on what individuals he could rely?"

On March 26 2017 12:03 KwarK wrote:

So payroll deductions are 6.2% for Social Security and 2.9% for Medicare for the employee. However the employer also has to pay 6.2% for Social Security on behalf of the employee. If you're self employed then you end up paying all three, 15.3/106.2. However if you're not self employed you still have them come out of your total compensation, the second 6.2% is just a stealth tax. It is still money being earned by you for the value you provided to the employer being taken by the government either way. The only difference is if they leave you a receipt on your pay stub saying that they took it. If you're employed then you get a receipt for 9.1%, even though they took 15.

On March 26 2017 14:57 Acrofales wrote:

You clearly know more about this than I do, but isn't it so that the employer tax should be completely transparent to employees? It doesn't get mentioned on your pay stub, because it doesn't come out of your bruto salary. Rather, the employer has to pay that in addition to your bruto salary.

In other words, if you negotiate a bruto salary of $1000, and SS is the only tax you pay, you end up receiving $938. However your employer actually pays $1062. You just never know about that other tax the government charges.

In general, employees are far more expensive for companies than the employees know. If you're self-employed you suddenly have to pay all those "hidden" taxes (which are only hidden to employees, not employers), because you are now an employer (of yourself). Why was it set up like this? I have no idea, but it is the case on most countries (all that I have a very worked in).

On March 26 2017 14:57 Acrofales wrote:

You clearly know more about this than I do, but isn't it so that the employer tax should be completely transparent to employees? It doesn't get mentioned on your pay stub, because it doesn't come out of your bruto salary. Rather, the employer has to pay that in addition to your bruto salary.

In other words, if you negotiate a bruto salary of $1000, and SS is the only tax you pay, you end up receiving $938. However your employer actually pays $1062. You just never know about that other tax the government charges.

In general, employees are far more expensive for companies than the employees know. If you're self-employed you suddenly have to pay all those "hidden" taxes (which are only hidden to employees, not employers), because you are now an employer (of yourself). Why was it set up like this? I have no idea, but it is the case on most countries (all that I have a very worked in).

On March 26 2017 17:25 LegalLord wrote:

It's not got that much credibility at this point. Trump clearly is flailing around stupidly rather than consolidating power in any meaningful way.

On March 27 2017 00:25 ShoCkeyy wrote:


Idk, then how does Ivanka get her own office in WH without being appointed?

On March 27 2017 00:28 Gorsameth wrote:

Consolidation of power. Trump letting his daughter live in 'his' house.

Seriously? That is your example?

On March 26 2017 14:57 Acrofales wrote:

You clearly know more about this than I do, but isn't it so that the employer tax should be completely transparent to employees? It doesn't get mentioned on your pay stub, because it doesn't come out of your bruto salary. Rather, the employer has to pay that in addition to your bruto salary.

In other words, if you negotiate a bruto salary of $1000, and SS is the only tax you pay, you end up receiving $938. However your employer actually pays $1062. You just never know about that other tax the government charges.

In general, employees are far more expensive for companies than the employees know. If you're self-employed you suddenly have to pay all those "hidden" taxes (which are only hidden to employees, not employers), because you are now an employer (of yourself). Why was it set up like this? I have no idea, but it is the case on most countries (all that I have a very worked in).

On March 27 2017 01:51 Trainrunnef wrote:


You do realize that she's not just living there right? She is going for security clearance and islikely going to serve as some sort of adviser.

Not to mention the fact that he is lining up his ducks in the house. Just see the chairman Nunez actions last week with the Russian investigation and the reported wiretapping. Publicly calling out dissenters during his speech for ahca. Discrediting news (which is the only public tool against him ). All these things are subtle and individually not enough to raise alarms, but look at the whole picture and it's not so much of a leap of faith to make that assertion.

On March 27 2017 00:28 LightSpectra wrote:
Just wanted to say 'bravo' for his summary of how Social Security works.

Although I think you're being a bit harsh on the Democrats. I don't think their platform betrays an ignorance of how the system works. It's politicking. Telling people "we want to make adjustments more favorable to you" is harder to sell than "Republicans want to rob you of the money you put into the system, demand no cuts."

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee investigating alleged ties between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia has reportedly exhibited odd behaviour, participating in a “peculiar midnight run” to see secret documents and not being transparent with his colleagues.

His committee’s investigation has since stalled following a series of unusual events.

This comes shortly after a hearing where FBI director James Comey confirmed he was investigating possible collusion between Russian operatives and Trump aides, and the Committee’s senior Democrat Adam Schiff said he and Mr Nunes subsequently had a classified briefing which gave him “more than circumstantial” evidence of such collusion.

Mr Nunes has not shared the documents he obtained during his “peculiar midnight run” this week with his Democratic colleagues in the committee, said Mr Schiff.

He instead called an impromptu press conference to announce that he had seen dozens of intelligence reports which showed that Mr Trump’s aides were subject to “incidental data collection”, that is caught in a foreign surveillance net cast by US spy agencies.

California Democrat Schiff and Mr Nunes put in a joint request to Mr Comey to share with their committee the information given to them in the classified briefing. But before an answer could be given, Mr Nunes cancelled a second scheduled hearing for 28 March, where intelligence chiefs were expected to speak.

Mr Nunes said he called off the meeting to have more time to confer with Mr Comey and the National Security Agency director Michael Rogers.

He did not say what exactly what was in the documents or who had shown them to him.

Instead, he briefed the President, who recently claimed he had been illegally wiretapped by his predecessor in collusion with the UK.

“I had a duty and obligation to tell him because, as you know, he’s taking a lot of heat in the news media,” said Mr Nunes, who served on the Trump transition team.

Mr Nunes’ behaviour and the cancelling of the hearing have raised questions over the credibility of the committee’s investigation.

“The chairman has to make a decision over whether he is a surrogate for the President, as he was during the campaign and transition, or whether he’s leading a bipartisan investigation, because he can’t do both,” Mr Schiff told the San Francisco Chronicle.

“This week, unfortunately, he behaved like a surrogate and that is a real problem.”

Mr Schiff said he was determined to “soldier on” with the committee, however, otherwise the investigation could completely collapse.

Mr Schiff and Mr Nunes are not presiding over the only investigation of Mr Trump’s ties to Russia. A separate Senate hearing on the alleged links will take place on Thursday.

On March 27 2017 03:42 Gahlo wrote:

Didn't he also fire all the attorneys that were around before him also? Or something like that? I don't know what the precedent is for that, but it looks fishy.