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).

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.

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).

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

Mexico extends all the way to Tierra del Fuego.

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.

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

I believe it includes Puerto Rico also.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

;)

Fixed

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

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".

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

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?

Only for my Ted Cruz and Russian Hacking news.

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.

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?

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.

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

Luckily this could never be abused.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Senate votes 51-48 to repeal Obamacare.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Also:

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

(really surprised it took THAT long)

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

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.

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?

Yep. The fact that him and his father both got zero traction in their presidential runs show how much GOP voters really care about economic policy.

We are thinking of making an online database with all "verified" twitter accounts & their family/job/financial/housing relationships.

— WikiLeaks Task Force (@WLTaskForce) January 6, 2017

Because this could never be abused.

Well, Trump did say that we should target both terrorists and their families. I suppose that goes for anyone else deemed an enemy of the state, so you gotta make those links!

While we're on WikiLeaks:

WikiLeaks opposes leaking of CIA report | TheHill

Followed by:

Trump to seek probe of secret report he says was given to NBC

:lol:

Oh I like the HELL outta this one.

Didn't we have a discussion up the thread somewhere, about making employees want to leave regardless of any overwrought h.r. foolishness?

So now Trump says the U.S. is going to pay for the wall, but that Mexico is still going to pay us for it down the road, in some unspecified way.

If he is so confident, perhaps he can front some of his own money as a sign of goodwill. Shouldn't be an issue since Mexico will totally pay him back.

Oh, here's an idea.

Perhaps Mexican nationals could pay us back by offering to, I don't know, come into the country and do some work for us, perhaps in industries like agriculture or meat packing, in American communities where we have difficulty finding people to staff those jobs. I mean, it goes without saying that we'd pay them less, and we wouldn't let them have Medicare benefits and stuff, but it seems like a win all around.

Actually I'm surprised he hasn't said that Mexicans would physically build the wall.

I don't doubt that there are gov't employees who don't pull their weight. Don't doubt it at all. But you know that there would be no hesitation to identify and target some whistle-blower, or someone who burned Trump with a tweet in 2013, or posted support for xyz at some point.

edit: or even made contributions to Democratic candidates

I know you have no issue with that, but that should be chilling to the rest of us.

Only if you're one of the miscreants involved.

Political Correctness is bad, unless the politics are yours.

(royal "yours")

The 'slashing of the salary to $1' - don't federal workers have contracts or SOME sort of protection against this sort of thing? ....

Seems ludicrous if something like this can be made legal tbh, especially if there are potentially negative consequences to 'quitting a job' (I have no idea - but in England if you quit a job then its hard to get benefits than if you're made redundant or sacked).

Now the requests for names in various departments makes a lot more sense.

I make no bones about it: I don't want to simply "defeat" liberal politics/policies/liberalism in general. I want to see it become extinct.

Starving it out is a completely valid tactic afaic.

And it's like you're completely okay with using tactics you would howl about if the worm ever turned.

Wait, what am I saying? You're a Republican. Of COURSE you're cool with "okay for me but not for thee."

Jon hearts Russia.

I'm with you except for "policies". Do you mean that we should never be concerned about the environment if that liberal policy goes extinct?

For perspective, about me (this is only my 2nd post here):
Independent who currently identifies as Republican
Was liberal for most of my life

Still liberal on:
climate change
gun control
taxing the 1%
church/state

Conservative on:
rule of law
illegal immigration
first amendment per pc & college experience
strong military as deterrence
generally smaller government (esp federal)
liberal media is brainwashing many young people (seriously)

Attack conservative thinking all you want, but please don't attack me.

:laughs until beverage comes out nose:

Uh, have you two met?

Jon is also ok living in an Orwellian dystopia. (Or utopia in his view, I guess.)

If that (sarcastic/rhetorical?) comment is for me, it already feels like an attack. Maybe I'm just still sensitized from the election. I was hoping that liberals on this forum would be more serious and open-minded than the garden variety liberal on facebook. Am I wrong? (sorry, but I'm too lazy to read the previous 10 pages for an answer to that).

No, this was a hopefully-humorous slight on anyone thinking they can find any degree of bend in the principles of the particular poster to whom you appeal for mercy.

Once you reveal the slightest variation from his particular worldview, I think it's very safe that he will lump you in with the rest of us as "waste of carbon" or the like. Your list that you might think of as "6 out of 10 conservative views" likely lands you in the same circle of his hell as Nancy Pelosi.

He's just a particular sort of guy, that's all.

Thanks. It always seems difficult for me to gauge the "culture" of a message board.

Think Dick Cheney without the compassion or charm.

Speaking of defense secretaries, William Perry is my uncle. Proud of that even though it is no reflection on me.

Is he large, but not a dumb cookie?

So it looks like Republicans will defund Planned Parenthood next month as they chip away at Obamacare.

I'm amazed at how short sighted people are on this issue. By taking away the $500 million per year they receive it's going to end up costing the government billions in the long run.

I'm guessing there might be an uptick in teenage pregnancies as a result too.

Pregnancies, STDs, and women's health issues would all spike. The final cost to the government for cutting the funding will be staggering.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't an attack on you in any way.

I'm ... well, I think it's fair to say around these parts I'm famously/infamously intractable.

Quiksand explained it pretty well IMO, and did a pretty fair job of anticipating my reactions as well, although in fairness to myself I would have likely gone with the considerably softer "you're part of the problem, not the solution" rather than the frequently used "waste of oxygen" he referenced.

I don't know you well enough for the latter yet, you might still have some hope of being redeemable ;)

Working in the Medicaid industry I can tell you without a doubt that this will be a financial nightmare. This is seriously short sighted and there is already a higher than average birthrate among the Medicaid population that often creates/maintains a legacy of public assistance. I am not grouping all into this pot, but there is definitely a substantial percentage of members of this population that could potentially drive up costs, either through naivety or choice because of this.

Arizona enacted coverage for LARC effective 10-1-16, which can be provided after a delivery to prevent unplanned births for an extended period of time. I am curious if/how funding will affect this as this was seen as a positive step in reducing maternal/fetal medicine costs and easing the strain in Medicaid funds.

Gonna throw 6:30 Eastern as a pretty fair line for when Trump bashes Meryl Streep on Twitter in the morning.

CNN already has her as headline news.

I believe the time stamp shows his tweet at 3:27 pacfic.

Meryl Streep, one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood, doesn't know me but attacked last night at the Golden Globes. She is a.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 9, 2017

:lol:
/thread

Joking aside, I wonder if we're going to get to a point where this becomes a constant thing as B-list celebrities realize that a great way to get in the headlines is to trash Trump publicly and enjoy the publicity benefits of his inevitable Twitter temper tantrum.

(Dola: Not saying Streep is B-list, but B-listers have enough visibility to generate headlines if they trash him, too. Rinse. Repeat.)

I'm not necessarily supporting Trump in these twitter reactions, but I will say that this election cycle has partly ruined me for watching movies that these !@#$%^*& actors are in. I might never again watch movies with Ruffalo, Sheen, Streep, Wyle, etc. To be fair, I also avoid a few conservative actors, like that drunk anti-Semite Mel Gibson. I just have a hard time "seeing" the characters; I only see the actors. I wish I knew NOTHING about these people.

Mel Gibson is the poster-boy for actors whose films I actively avoid at this point.

These actors are only heroes in their own mind. The award events for acting have kind of become like Scientology meetings. They sit in a room and pat each other on the back about how great they are, while the general public just wishes they'd shut up and focus on their job.

I only watch Kirk Cameron movies.

Only reality TV stars should be allowed to speak about politics.

Bananas?:D

Eh... no one is going to pay attention to them much for anti-Trump sentiments. People pay attention to A-list celebrities because they are A-list.

You should get out and hang out with the cows more.

But it is Trump. Any kind of reported or published slight against him, he can't help but lash out.

I'm in my office hanging out with my dog. Soon as the Doc gets here we're going to go play with the cows.

Pretty much. But that kinda adds to my confusion about this latest kerfluffle.

As you might suspect, my social media feeds had a fair bit about last night's speeches & such, and it kinda left me scratching my head (not for the first time either).

I haven't seen a Meryl Streep movie in Godonlyknowswhen. I've seen one since I've watched the Golden Globes though. I have essentially no interest in her before or after her little speech.

Thing that furrows my brow is how there's so many folks who got worked up over her (rather predictable) comments and "don't care what she thinks".

My question is essentially "why'n the hell were you watching that shit show in the first place then?"

I do not, for the very life of me, understand the need some folks have to actively hunt down things that will irritate them. Surely, SURELY there can't be so many people living lives that have a shortage of irritations. Seeking out additional ones is kinda nuts to me.

Who is Meryl Streep?