|
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. |
On May 26 2017 04:22 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2017 04:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote: If Trudeau solved the matchup, why aren't other players copying him? They lack the raw mechanics. We all know that Trump is the protoss of the politics world. Populist appeal has the lowest skill cap of all. Trump can just a-move while his opponents need 400 apm to stand a badly executed handshake, ridiculous Trump knows one build per match up. Some dumb 2 base timing that wins him most games against better opponents. But he has no idea what to do late game because he never plays for it.
|
|
Canada13389 Posts
|
Had they not been paying attention? That's been obvious for well over a year.
|
Before anyone who read or paid attention would know Trump was a Russian plant. But now that Trump disgraced the NATO allies in public and in their faces by not bringing up Article 5 and berating them about back payments that don't exist, the NATO allies can't possible deny it or else they would lose face themselves. Trump could have hid behind rumors, but he had to rub the NATO guy's faces in in the fact that he wouldn't mention Article 5.
|
United States42803 Posts
It's entirely plausible he's just stupid and that the speech was just a rehashing of his greatest hits which idiots back home were prepared to applaud. He could have literally not known that the same ignorant America First nonsense that plays with people who don't know any better wouldn't work with Merkel.
|
On May 26 2017 05:06 KwarK wrote: It's entirely plausible he's just stupid and that the speech was just a rehashing of his greatest hits which idiots back home were prepared to applaud. He could have literally not known that the same ignorant America First nonsense that plays with people who don't know any better wouldn't work with Merkel.
His ignorance won't save him here because he publicly embarrassed the alliance in front of the NATO heads of state.
Think of the wife being cheated on. The wife knows, but until she has proof she can feign ignorance and keep the marriage going. Once the husband rubs her face in it, she can't keep the facade up.
Same thing here. Everyone knew Trump was too close to Russia's position on NATO, but then he went and disrespected Article 5 in front of all those heads of state that have to stand for election within the next X years.
|
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/05/25/529507199/a-proposed-new-tax-mainly-on-latinos-to-pay-for-trumps-border-wall
One of President Trump's boldest, most ambitious proposals on the campaign trail was to build a wall along the Southern border and get Mexico to pay for it. Amid the tumult of Trump's first few months in office, the border wall hasn't gotten as much attention as some other things. But new legislation has been introduced in Congress to help fund it.
It's called the Border Wall Funding Act of 2017, introduced on March 30 by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.
And it would put a 2 percent tax on all person-to-person wire transfers to Mexico, the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean.
It's not the only bill targeting remittances. An earlier proposal in the Senate, which didn't advance out of committee, would have placed a 7 percent "fine" on remittances unless the sender can prove he or she is in the U.S. legally.
It should be noted that these proposals would only apply to personal transfers and not to businesses moving money abroad to say, Mexico or the Cayman Islands.
As you might expect, people who send remittances are not happy.
"I've already earned my money and paid taxes on it," says Rafael Villalobos Jr., a community college administrator in eastern Washington state who regularly sends money to his parents in Mexico. "The whole thing with this administration is about not having to pay more taxes, yet I have to pay an extra tax on money that I've already earned when I give it to my parents just because they are coincidentally on the other side of the border."
Villalobos says he's very concerned about any additional costs for sending money. He recently switched from using traditional wire transfer firms like MoneyGram and Western Union to a new mobile app called Remitly because it saves him a few bucks on fees per transfer.
"When I used to send money through those other means, it was typically a $10 sending fee, and instead of sending $400, I'd send $390," he says.
That 10 bucks, he says, goes a long way in Mexico.
"That is essentially another couple of days worth of food sometimes, depending on what you're buying," he adds.
Remittances are hugely important for the developing world.
For some countries, they're the leading source of foreign capital. In Haiti, they add up to more than $2 billion and represent 28 percent of the country's overall gross domestic product. For Mexico, remittances bring in more cash each year — $28.5 billion — than its vast oil fields do.
More than $60 billion in remittances are sent out of the U.S. each year, more than twice the $26 billion that the American government spends on foreign development aid. Advocates for tighter border controls say a tax on those funds is long overdue.
"There is a certain symmetry in having illegal immigrants underwrite part of the enforcement to prevent illegal immigration," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a D.C. think tank that advocates for stronger limits on migration to the U.S.
He says a remittance tax is an obvious place to look for new money for the border wall.
"Because the people who would be paying it are people who don't vote," Krikorian says. "I mean they're not even citizens."
But a remittance tax would affect anyone sending money regardless of their immigration status. Villalobos, for instance, is a U.S. citizen. Legal permanent residents would also be hit by the tax.
Krikorian would like to see a tax similar to one that Oklahoma put in place in 2009. Oklahoma slaps a $5 surcharge on personal wire transfers up to $500 leaving the state and an additional 1 percent on higher amounts. Technically, the tax is fully refundable as a tax credit the next year so long as the sender retains the wire transfer receipt and files state taxes in Oklahoma. The fee raises roughly $12 million a year for Oklahoma because hardly anyone claims a refund. To Krikorian, this is proof that a significant amount of remittances sent out of Oklahoma are from people who aren't in the country legally.
Or it might be that it's too much of a hassle to file for the refund.
Itai Grinberg, an international tax lawyer and a professor at Georgetown Law School, says it's fairly unusual for governments to tax outflows of cash. This is not something you'd normally see, he says, from Europe or Japan or the U.S.
"From the perspective of a major developed economy, it would be very unusual," says Grinberg. Taxes are usually levied on goods or services or income but not on the movement of money from one place to another.
Taxing cash transfers is usually a strategy employed by leftist autocrats, like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, when their currency has gone in to a nosedive, he says.
But the idea of taxing remittances is gaining support in some wealthy countries that rely heavily on migrant labor. Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have recently proposed remittance taxes.
The World Bank has blasted the idea of these taxes, calling them a "bad idea." The World Bank says they hurt some of the poorest countries by reducing the inflow of desperately needed cash. In addition, a World Bank report on the subject last month says remittance taxes are difficult to administer.
Even if the taxes are put in place, the report notes, migrants are likely to find some other way to get their money sent without paying a tax.
This is one of those ideas that seems great when you say it out loud and then you find out it is it like holding sand in a clenched fist. This is a tax that will become impossible to collect.
|
Canada13389 Posts
I know its buzzfeed but that whole article is full of ridiculous cronyism.
The person working for Mar a lago AND the government PREVIOUSLY worked for Betsy Devos ... -_-
|
On May 26 2017 04:54 Nevuk wrote:Had they not been paying attention? That's been obvious for well over a year. I think, from an European pov, it's somewhat reasonable to assume that Trump will just say whatever while he's in the US, on a tour to hype up his base in *insert whereever*. Because people know it sells with his base. Having seen him keep that up in Europe, while standing in front of various leaders from the EU as well as the building itself could very well be unexpected and going too far for them. ESPECIALLY after seeing him being all cozy in the middle east towards people he criticised a lot earlier.
|
Canada13389 Posts
Perspective in a twitter thread from a former US ambassador to NATO
|
The left is so mean to Trump. All he is doing is handing out money to hard working American billionaires like himself and his friends. His hotels might as well call themselves Tammany Hall.
|
I can't even keep up with all this nonsense. At least it speaks for itself, given how... off-kilter, Trump is. I hope it ends soon.
|
On May 26 2017 02:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 02:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2017 02:33 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2017 02:20 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 02:07 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 26 2017 01:14 Sadist wrote:On May 26 2017 01:03 xDaunt wrote:On May 26 2017 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:On May 26 2017 00:48 Plansix wrote: Ryan’s statements give me comfort. That he and the Republican House get exactly what they deserve around November of next year. My only hope is that they don’t pass any version of this nightmare bill. Don't leave work early, dress well, stay assertive and keep your job. That's honestly the perspective I've been taking with regards to all this. Whatever you do, do not lose your job. You can lose your job or change your job. Just make sure that you don't have any gaps in coverage by getting COBRA coverage between jobs. Ya its not like COBRA is expensive or anything As someone who hasn't ever had to deal with non-employer provided healthcare, isn't part of the idea (whether just in theory or actual practice) of AHCA to reduce the cost of things like COBRA? I'm pretty ignorant of how it all works since I've fortunately never had to go through any part of that process. COBRA as i know it allows you the option to stay on your previous employers insurance plan if you lose your job. The thing is in the USA your employer pays all or part of your premium pre tax. You do the same if you are responsible for part of the premium. The thing is the cost of healthcare insurance that your employer pays is pretty much invisible to most americans. Its also pretty expensive. For example. Your employer might pay a $500 premium for your insurance pre tax. You may pay $100 so the total cost is $600. With Cobra you can buy the same coverage for $600 + a fee but its out of pocket after taxes. So you get double fucked. You are responsible for the employers portion of the premium plus your portion but its after taxes instead of before. So you lost your job but pay way more premium in cost + get fucked by taxes. Unemployment is $362 /week if you cap out so about half of your unemployment goes to your premium. I think you can recoup some of the premium on your taxes but im not sure. You can get insurance on the exchanges instead if you want. It really becomes apparent why health insurance should not be related to employment at all when you look at this stuff If you're itemizing then the tax deductibility of the insurance premiums is unchanged. You were always allowed to deduct health insurance costs on the Schedule A as long as they were paid with post-tax money (because a deduction is essentially claiming back the tax you paid on an expense and if you pay with pre-tax money then you never paid any tax on that money in the first place so you can't get it back). It's one of those things where if you're one of the poorer Americans who doesn't itemize then you're fucked but if you're itemizing (middle class/homeowners with expensive houses etc) then you're fine. TLDR: You can claim back the taxes on your premiums if you already had $12,600 of deductible expenses to make itemizing worth it. It still means you have to eat the cost until tax season right? You eat the cost upfront but get it back later. Hopefully there is enough cash around to get a person through. This is a problem. The average American household savings do not allow for this. Sure, people should save more, but they aren't. When people get these medical bills, it creates secondary costs and issues. When people can't afford care, or end up in too much debt, society as a whole suffers more secondary costs. At the end of the day, a policy which assumes people can cover some up front cost is illogical. It is based on a situation that has been shown does not exist. The savings rate of the average American is a problem in and of itself.
True, but that is in many ways besides the point. What I am saying is that advocating for policy which relies on another problem being fixed, before that problem is fixed, is unequivocally bad. Creating a policy that only works for people who are responsible is bad policy because millions of people are irresponsible. When these people become critically poor, it spills over into costing both themselves AND our government/budget directly.
That's the big problem with the Paul Ryan perspective on fixing social programs and the like. When you curve the system so that it only works well for people who are responsible and all that crap, you just end up with a really ineffective system. People do not adapt and improve. It just goes bad because despite all the reasons for these people to change, they do not. I think it is difficult for a lot of people in our position, who are very capable and have worked very hard to get where we are, to fully grasp how beyond saving many, many Americans are. They will never improve. All we can do is provide safeguards to that when shit hits the fan, it doesn't just create a chain reaction of more shit hitting more fans. But fundamentally, the idea that these low-tier people can be improved is wrong and always will be.
|
Beautiful headquarters. Very many friends I have here. Thank you all for coming to see me today. Good night.
|
odd thing to boast about.
|
NATO handled Trump well, I'm glad things turned out as they did.
|
It's nothing to boast about, surely, but I think when he looks at a lot of polls that put him closer to 30%, because you know he spends his time trolling the internet, a 48% is something that makes him happy. Basic grasping of straws.
|
On May 26 2017 05:28 farvacola wrote: NATO handled Trump well, I'm glad things turned out as they did.
Well it was just a working dinner not a full on summit so lord knows what sparks will fly during one of those.
|
On May 26 2017 04:22 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2017 04:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote: If Trudeau solved the matchup, why aren't other players copying him? They lack the raw mechanics. We all know that Trump is the protoss of the politics world. Populist appeal has the lowest skill cap of all. Trump can just a-move while his opponents need 400 apm to stand a badly executed handshake, ridiculous
Populism can be leftwing too, you shouldn't accept this analogy!
Which is why you don't make sense as a human being, btw: because it's so absurdly obvious that terran is liberal ^_^
|
|
|
|