Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 19:21:49 GMT
Reuters...
“JUST IN: Mexico's National Farm Council says it supports 'surgical' application of retaliatory tariffs targeting Republican-voting U.S. states if Trump's threatened tariffs are enacted. Read more: reut”
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 31, 2019 20:14:47 GMT
they were talking about this on progressive radio this morning... the climate change deniers will start using this type of logic pretty soon to justify not doing anything to fix it: 'it's too late to fix it now, and we'll be dead by then anyway, so...' So to hell with the future of the entire planet and the human race, I guess?? "But by God, we'll have a good time sitting on our piles of money in our bank vault before WE die, damn it!!" <fat, greasy-looking billionaire bangs fist on table...>
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 31, 2019 20:40:32 GMT
MSNBC: Breaking news, but I can't write fast enough............ VM transcript from John Down personal defense Lawyer of dt leaving message for Flynn's lawyer after they discovered that Flynn may have flipped... YOu know how he feels about you ............. but .. if you have something on the president it could be a national security issue... ( in essence we need to know.... but this was after the breaking away for the joint defense agreement so there should be no contact) commentators ...... sounds threatening, sounds 'goodfellows' Sorry I couldn't do better with this, but surely there will be more.............. lizacreates @fred crimsoncat05 help
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 31, 2019 21:09:29 GMT
MSNBC: Breaking news, but I can't write fast enough............ VM transcript from John Down personal defense Lawyer of dt leaving message for Flynn's lawyer after they discovered that Flynn may have flipped... YOu know how he feels about you ............. but .. if you have something on the president it could be a national security issue... ( in essence we need to know.... but this was after the breaking away for the joint defense agreement so there should be no contact) commentators ...... sounds threatening, sounds 'goodfellows' Sorry I couldn't do better with this, but surely there will be more.............. lizacreates @fred crimsoncat05 help Breaking news? That happened a couple weeks ago. It was brought up on this thread. When Flynn severed the joint defense agreement with Trump, Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, called Flynn’s lawyer to remind them that Trump’s goodwill is predicated on Flynn’s non-cooperation with Mueller (it wasn’t phrased that way, but that’s the gist of it). Someone, or perhaps more than one, in Congress was also involved in pressuring Flynn not to flip.
|
|
|
Post by MissBianca on May 31, 2019 21:18:09 GMT
they were talking about this on progressive radio this morning... the climate change deniers will start using this type of logic pretty soon to justify not doing anything to fix it: 'it's too late to fix it now, and we'll be dead by then anyway, so...' So to hell with the future of the entire planet and the human race, I guess?? "But by God, we'll have a good time sitting on our piles of money in our bank vault before WE die, damn it!!" <fat, greasy-looking billionaire bangs fist on table...> I heard this exact bullshit from the parent of my daughters classmate. We were talking about climate change, being a good steward of the environment for the next generation, etc and the mom was like well as long as she reads her scriptures it doesn’t matter. I’m like soooo poison the planet she will live on for the next 70 years because some day she will go to this alleged kingdom of heaven?! But who cares about the next generation.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 31, 2019 21:18:53 GMT
MSNBC: Breaking news, but I can't write fast enough............ VM transcript from John Down personal defense Lawyer of dt leaving message for Flynn's lawyer after they discovered that Flynn may have flipped... YOu know how he feels about you ............. but .. if you have something on the president it could be a national security issue... ( in essence we need to know.... but this was after the breaking away for the joint defense agreement so there should be no contact) commentators ...... sounds threatening, sounds 'goodfellows' Sorry I couldn't do better with this, but surely there will be more.............. lizacreates @fred crimsoncat05 help Breaking news? That happened a couple weeks ago. It was brought up on this thread. When Flynn severed the joint defense agreement with Trump, Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, called Flynn’s lawyer to remind them that Trump’s goodwill is predicated on Flynn’s non-cooperation with Mueller (it wasn’t phrased that way, but that’s the gist of it). Someone, or perhaps more than one, in Congress was also involved in pressuring Flynn not to flip. Maybe thevtape is public now? But that’s not obstruction of justice? Like I said the REDACTED mueller report makes Nixon look like a good guy imagine what the un-redacted report shows.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:30:18 GMT
Breaking news? That happened a couple weeks ago. It was brought up on this thread. When Flynn severed the joint defense agreement with Trump, Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, called Flynn’s lawyer to remind them that Trump’s goodwill is predicated on Flynn’s non-cooperation with Mueller (it wasn’t phrased that way, but that’s the gist of it). Someone, or perhaps more than one, in Congress was also involved in pressuring Flynn not to flip. Maybe the tape is public now? But that’s not obstruction of justice? Like I said the REDACTED mueller report makes Nixon look like a good guy imagine what the un-redacted report shows. Transcript is public: www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-john-dowd-voicemail/index.html"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I'm-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:34:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 21:36:40 GMT
they were talking about this on progressive radio this morning... the climate change deniers will start using this type of logic pretty soon to justify not doing anything to fix it: 'it's too late to fix it now, and we'll be dead by then anyway, so...' So to hell with the future of the entire planet and the human race, I guess?? "But by God, we'll have a good time sitting on our piles of money in our bank vault before WE die, damn it!!" <fat, greasy-looking billionaire bangs fist on table...> I heard this exact bullshit from the parent of my daughters classmate. We were talking about climate change, being a good steward of the environment for the next generation, etc and the mom was like well as long as she reads her scriptures it doesn’t matter. I’m like soooo poison the planet she will live on for the next 70 years because some day she will go to this alleged kingdom of heaven?! But who cares about the next generation. This is the problem with religions and ideologies that treat this life as just a dirty rest stop on the way to HeavenLand (TM). You know how people treat rest stops, right?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 31, 2019 22:01:57 GMT
Breaking news? That happened a couple weeks ago. It was brought up on this thread. When Flynn severed the joint defense agreement with Trump, Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, called Flynn’s lawyer to remind them that Trump’s goodwill is predicated on Flynn’s non-cooperation with Mueller (it wasn’t phrased that way, but that’s the gist of it). Someone, or perhaps more than one, in Congress was also involved in pressuring Flynn not to flip. It has been a long long few weeks......... but they have the actual transcript now it seems. THANK YOU!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 31, 2019 22:08:51 GMT
Transcript is public: www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-john-dowd-voicemail/index.html"Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-I'm-I'm sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't ... state it in ... starker terms. If you have ... and it wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh ... I understand that you can't join the joint defense; so that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there's information that. .. implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don't know ... some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So ... uh ... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of ... protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any ... confidential information. So, uhm, and if it's the former, then, you know, remember what we've always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal." Thank you... sorry I couldn't tag everyone.........!! BTW: there was nothing on any site while I was also trying to type.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 31, 2019 22:17:39 GMT
So now we know Dowd did in essence offer Flynn a pardon? or Intimidated a witness? OBSTRUCTION, that's it!! No arrests, our DOJ is demolished!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 31, 2019 22:59:08 GMT
A new different opinion: EXECUTIVE POWER Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the PresidentBy Laurence H. Tribe Thursday, December 20, 2018, 11:55 AM In a recent opinion piece, I argued that the text and structure of the Constitution, a serious commitment to the rule of law, and plain good sense combine to preclude a rigid policy of “delaying any indictment of a president for crimes committed in winning the presidency.” When a scholar I admire as much as Philip Bobbitt strongly disagrees and argues otherwise in this publication, I need to rethink my position and respond—either confessing error or explaining why I continue to hold to the views I originally expressed. Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case. The same is true for any number of other cases that come readily to mind. Among those, in my view, must be the not-so-hypothetical case of a president who turns out to have committed serious crimes as a private citizen in order to win the presidency. Whether the president committed such crimes in collusion with a shady group of private collaborators or did so in conspiracy with one or more foreign adversaries, it should not be necessary for the House to decide that such pre-inaugural felonies were impeachable offenses and for the Senate to convict and remove the officeholder before putting him in the dock as an alleged felon and meting out justice. ** Much more at link: www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-president
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 0:16:33 GMT
A group of New York theater companies this weekend will hold a 24-hour live-reading of special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The event, titled "Filibustered and Unfiltered: America Reads the Mueller Report," will begin Saturday at 8 p.m. and continue through Sunday at The Arc, a venue in Long Island City, Queens. The event is billed as a "24-hour celebration of the American Citizen" and will be produced by theater companies New Neighborhood and Slightly Altered States, and the arts and media company DMNDR. Director Jackson Gay came up with the idea for the event, which began as a half-serious social media post, according to The New York Times. She told the newspaper that the goal of the project is not to dramatize, but rather to give people a "voice" in a complicated political climate. “It’s not meant to be a performance,” she said. “It’s meant to be a bunch of people coming together and finding their voice. We shouldn’t just sit back on our couches and let other people tell us what to think.” “It’s really just about our responsibility as American citizens to read this thing that we paid for,” she added. More than 100 people have volunteered to participate as readers and the event will also have live music and "unannounced special guests." Tickets will start at $10 and proceeds that go beyond covering the event's cost will benefit immigrant rights groups RAICES Texas and CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project. ** thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/446413-new-york-theatre-companies-to-hold-24-hour-live-reading-ofGreat idea! Too short notice..........
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 0:42:27 GMT
I hope they all succeed! (CNN)US Border Patrol agents and other Department of Homeland Security law enforcement officers will be sent to Guatemala to assist in training missions with local authorities as part of a two-year plan aimed at decreasing migration flows to the United States.Agents will be "side-by-side" with local Guatemalan authorities, deployed to locations where US law enforcement has not traditionally operated, according to a senior DHS official. This is a unique surge of DHS personnel to Guatemala, with a "significant increase" in US law enforcement presence in the country, said acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan. The deployment of DHS officers follows an agreement signed earlier this week between the US and Guatemalan governments. It comes as the administration is trying to find a way to stem the influx of migrant families, mostly from Central America, through Mexico to the US. The number of migrants illegally crossing the the southern US border has been on a steady upswing, resulting in dangerous overcrowding in US holding facilities at the border. The month of May is on pace to have the highest number of border crossings in over 12 years, according to McAleenan. ** Early Wednesday morning, Homeland Security Investigations agents participated in a raid led by the Guatemalan police to take down an alleged criminal organization, in what was considered the first cooperative operation carried out after the agreement was signed. Similar operations have taken place in the past, but "never with this kind of support" from US and local governments, said a DHS official. The official described the increase in law enforcement support as one "piece" of the effort to address illegal migration and security issues, which also includes nongovernmental organizations and other support. "There's not one solution to this whole problem," said the official. "We're improving the security side of the house." ** More at link: www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/us-border-patrol-agents-will-train-guatemala/index.html** Tegucigalpa, Honduras (CNN)The main entrance of the US Embassy in the Honduran capital Tegucigalpa was left charred Friday after demonstrators set fire to tires and objects in front of the building. The fire was extinguished by mid-afternoon.The fire comes amid days of protests by education and medical professionals, who are urging the government not to privatize their sectors. It was not immediately clear whether the embassy was the intended target of the demonstrators. ** More at link: www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/americas/us-embassy-honduras-fire/index.html
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 2:32:07 GMT
A smile for all of you this evening!!Do we all remember this charmer? Yes, we do!! A former West Virginia official who gained notoriety after making a racist remark about former first lady Michelle Obama was sentenced to prison this week after pleading guilty to embezzling federal disaster funds.Pamela Taylor, who served as the Clay County development director, was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison and two months of house arrest, the local U.S. attorney's office announced Thursday. She was also fined $10,000. Taylor pleaded guilty in February to taking more than $18,000 in relief benefits meant to help people whose homes were damaged in flooding in 2016. She registered for the benefits, saying that her home was damaged. Prosecutors later said it was discovered that her home was not damaged. In her plea agreement, Taylor also agreed to pay $18,149.04 in restitution. Prosecutors said Thursday that she has paid the money. U.S. District Judge Irene Berger, an Obama appointee, presided over her sentencing hearing. “There’s no such thing as a little bit of FEMA fraud. Taylor’s fraudulent scheme took FEMA dollars away from those who needed it the most,” U.S. Attorney Mike Stuart said in a statement, referring to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Taylor gained notoriety when she was fired in 2016 after a Facebook post in which she referred to Obama as an "Ape." "It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels," she wrote. ** thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/446362-ex-wva-official-who-made-racist-michelle-obama-remark-sentencedI have reached a point that they should not be mentioning who appointed a judge!!!! I make an exception for this one, because it makes me happy.... Payback that does not hurt anyone! I truly want to believe that our judges are honorable for as long as I can!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 1, 2019 4:15:07 GMT
A new different opinion: EXECUTIVE POWER Yes, the Constitution Allows Indictment of the PresidentBy Laurence H. Tribe Thursday, December 20, 2018, 11:55 AM In a recent opinion piece, I argued that the text and structure of the Constitution, a serious commitment to the rule of law, and plain good sense combine to preclude a rigid policy of “delaying any indictment of a president for crimes committed in winning the presidency.” When a scholar I admire as much as Philip Bobbitt strongly disagrees and argues otherwise in this publication, I need to rethink my position and respond—either confessing error or explaining why I continue to hold to the views I originally expressed. Not to extend the suspense: I haven’t changed my mind. My op-ed argued against the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos opining that the Constitution prevents the indictment of a sitting president. Nearly everyone concedes that any such policy would have to permit exceptions. The familiar hypothetical of a president who shoots and kills someone in plain view clinches the point. Surely, there must be an exception for that kind of case: Having to wait until the House of Representatives impeaches the alleged murderer and the Senate removes him from office before prosecuting and sentencing him would be crazy. Nobody seriously advocates applying the OLC mantra of “no indictment of a sitting president” to that kind of case. The same is true for any number of other cases that come readily to mind. Among those, in my view, must be the not-so-hypothetical case of a president who turns out to have committed serious crimes as a private citizen in order to win the presidency. Whether the president committed such crimes in collusion with a shady group of private collaborators or did so in conspiracy with one or more foreign adversaries, it should not be necessary for the House to decide that such pre-inaugural felonies were impeachable offenses and for the Senate to convict and remove the officeholder before putting him in the dock as an alleged felon and meting out justice. ** Much more at link: www.lawfareblog.com/yes-constitution-allows-indictment-presidentThe only way this would be fair is for the statute of limitations on federal crimes be put on hold or tolled for a president, and restarted once he’s out of office. The only current mechanism available to toll is a sealed indictment which holds the prosecution of a federal crime in abeyance. But since a president is immune from any form of indictment, sealed or unsealed, then there is no other recourse if a president wins a second term, at which time the statute of limitations would expire. If our system of justice is truly based on the belief that no one is above the law Congress ought to make a provision that a president cannot run out the clock on federal crimes. If we're going to make an exception for an indictment, then we need to make an exception for the statute of limitations.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 4:54:45 GMT
If our system of justice is truly based on the belief that no one is above the law Congress ought to make a provision that a president cannot run out the clock on federal crimes. If we're going to make an exception for an indictment, then we need to make an exception for the statute of limitations. I was thinking that. However, someone today said that a president was voted out/or second term was over..... If the incoming president/party pursued cases against the leaving president, there could very very serious issues try to hold the government together. I could well understand that. We are watching how dt is going after/destroying everything Obama did and taking great pride in doing so. And he is degrading so many others.... Hopefully when dt loses in 2020 there will be huge choices to be made. Someone said that the democrats were going to add more Supreme Court Justices. That may be necessary at some point but why create problems now. All they are doing is talking retaliation......... It all has to STOP!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 5:19:26 GMT
Get the kids out to vote or their grandparents will continue to pull use backwards and down.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 1, 2019 5:27:01 GMT
Get the kids out to vote or their grandparents will continue to pull use backwards and down. There’s something wrong with Frank Luntz’s numbers. I do not believe there are 85 million people who are Gen Z. Maybe it’s Gen Z plus Refuse to State, or something like that. Lordy, I do go off on weird tangents. My old people are all Democrats and hate Trump, for whatever that’s worth. ETA I went googling and found this article that says there are almost 74 million Gen Z-ers. Okay, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 1, 2019 5:33:25 GMT
I am listed as silent but I am not SILENT. I think ya'll know that! My friend where I live is a boomer and she is OK to vote too! She enjoys my mini 'baby dt balloon!'
ETA: maybe I had better see if I can override this prednisone and get some sleep! Fortunately not eating too much!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 13:24:28 GMT
Get the kids out to vote or their grandparents will continue to pull us backwards and down. There’s something wrong with Frank Luntz’s numbers. I do not believe there are 85 million people who are Gen Z. Maybe it’s Gen Z plus Refuse to State, or something like that. Lordy, I do go off on weird tangents. My old people are all Democrats and hate Trump, for whatever that’s worth. ETA I went googling and found this article that says there are almost 74 million Gen Z-ers. Okay, I guess. Nope. He cited his source: www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/ There are that many. They are not all voters. In that chart he's just showing relative demo size of the different generations. ETA: fuzzy pic. Good pic at site. This is what scares the bejeezus out of the old white dudes. They know their day in the sun is coming to an end and the youngster are a FAR different, more tolerant, more diverse, less religious, more empathetic generation than they are.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 14:56:46 GMT
This is how you do it!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 15:18:44 GMT
This is how you do it!!!!!! link Really? From the Washington Post. “Warren’s ambitious agenda relies on a massive wealth tax that the rich may evade”From the article.. ”But some economists are beginning to question the math behind Warren’s proposals. Warren’s campaign says that the wealth tax would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years, enough to cover her spending plans with hundreds of billions of dollars to spare. She also has proposed a $1 trillion corporate tax on the most profitable companies. In a Washington Post op-ed last month, former Obama administration economic adviser Lawrence Summers and University of Pennsylvania professor Natasha Sarin wrote that “such a wealth tax will not yield the revenue that its proponents hope for,” citing figures from the current estate tax that show how the wealthy have proved adept in avoiding the 40 percent levy on their assets after death. The problem with their estimate is that they fail to engage with the fact that wealthy people do a lot of things that make it very hard to tax their estates, and will make it equally hard to tax their wealth,” said Sarin, who teaches finance at the Wharton School of Business. A recent poll of about 40 top economists by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found that 73 percent believed a wealth tax“would be much more difficult to enforce than existing federal taxes” because of tax evasion. Seven percent disagreed. Several cited the experience in Europe, where most countries have abandoned their wealth taxes in recent decades. Wealth taxes in the world’s richest nations have brought in far less revenue than expected as a result of tax avoidance, according to a 2018 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.“ My gripe about taxing the wealthy to pay for all these programs is I see this as an unreliable revenue source. Which means these programs could severely be underfunded. Then what? More broken promises by politicians.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 20:46:44 GMT
I agree that a wealth tax will bring out the cheaters in the wealthy who will try to avoid it.
Two things.
1. Hire TONS more people in the IRS using part of the revenue. This does two things, gets more money into the system AND gives people who are being outsourced, off-shored, automated, and downsized a good job.
2. I agree that a wealth tax is not the best way forward. That's why I prefer a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX of .5% to 1% on ALL FINANCIAL TRADES. There is $1TRILLION traded in the US DAILY!!!!! Taxing that like other people pay sales tax is only fair. And it bring in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to ONE TRILLION PER YEAR!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 1, 2019 21:00:27 GMT
I agree that a wealth tax will bring out the cheaters in the wealthy who will try to avoid it. Two things. 1. Hire TONS more people in the IRS using part of the revenue. This does two things, gets more money into the system AND gives people who are being outsourced, off-shored, automated, and downsized a good job. 2. I agree that a wealth tax is not the best way forward. That's why I prefer a FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX of .5% to 1% on ALL FINANCIAL TRADES. There is $1TRILLION traded in the US DAILY!!!!! Taxing that like other people pay sales tax is only fair. And it bring in HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to ONE TRILLION PER YEAR!!!!!! im right there with you on the financial transaction tax. You know how banks send your money to the other side of the world at night then get it back in the morning? Tax that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 21:28:17 GMT
CBO
BarronsFrom Barrons... “Why a Financial Transaction Tax Is Doomed to Fail”From the article. ”An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of a 0.1% tax on stock, bond, and derivative transactions reckons it would raise $777 billion between 2019-2028. But the CBO added there were a number of negative side effects, notably reduced market liquidity and higher capital costs for companies as a result of reduced asset prices. Household wealth would be reduced, while the cost of financing Uncle Sam’s debt would be increased.”I asked my friend google about the tax. At best it gets a 50% chance of being a viable stable revenue stream for the aggressive program proposed by those on the left running for president. Again, I want programs put in place that can be successfully implemented and paid for. I truly believe the reason so many don’t vote is because of promises made by politicians and nothing happens no matter how well intentioned they were when they were made. People are tired of empty promises.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jun 1, 2019 21:43:40 GMT
I’m more scared of not empty threats currently being made than any empty promises.
Tax cut for corporations didn’t work, so try something new
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 22:47:02 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 23:37:45 GMT
In 2016 some who voted for President Obama voted for trump. The reason they gave? They were disappointed he didn’t bring the change he promised and they saw Hillary as more of President Obama.
So yes, not delivering on what was promised does count.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 2, 2019 0:52:48 GMT
There’s something wrong with Frank Luntz’s numbers. I do not believe there are 85 million people who are Gen Z. Maybe it’s Gen Z plus Refuse to State, or something like that. Lordy, I do go off on weird tangents. My old people are all Democrats and hate Trump, for whatever that’s worth. ETA I went googling and found this article that says there are almost 74 million Gen Z-ers. Okay, I guess. Nope. He cited his source: www.statista.com/statistics/797321/us-population-by-generation/ There are that many. They are not all voters. In that chart he's just showing relative demo size of the different generations. ETA: fuzzy pic. Good pic at site. This is what scares the bejeezus out of the old white dudes. They know their day in the sun is coming to an end and the youngster are a FAR different, more tolerant, more diverse, less religious, more empathetic generation than they are. Yeah, I saw that they’re counting Gen Z as starting with mid-‘90s births. I didn’t realize it started so early. That’s a huge group, but they’re still mostly non-voters so far.
|
|