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?