|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jun 9, 2019 18:51:45 GMT
The name calling bully defenders don't want the name calling bully called names. And when discussing grass, the word green is not to be mentioned, and water shall not be labelled as wet.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 9, 2019 20:14:35 GMT
The name calling bully defenders don't want the name calling bully called names. And when discussing grass, the word green is not to be mentioned, and water shall not be labelled as wet. Wait. What? I thought it was the wettest water ever? I know it seems like this is a big stink over nothing. But when things like climate change can’t be addressed as such and official documents are referring to molecules of freedom rather than fossil fuels...this is an issue. Those descriptions have a negative connotation, because they are bad things to be! Why should someone who has been shown to be a racist, for example, not be called a racist? Why do we have to wrap the word up and put a bow on it? You don’t want the leader of your party to be called a racist,..maybe don’t elect a racist!!! And FFS they can all take a seat and shut their pie holes until they are on the news or social media calling a Trump out every.single.time he insults someone or uses a negative word to describe them. I’m sorry, this is really, really ticking me off. In a hearing to determine is the POTUS engaged in illegal activity, in part by lying, they are not supposed to use those words, or if I am reading the code correctly, any words that even hint at such? Are you fucking kidding me?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 1:34:46 GMT
Bill Mitchell....
”Trump wins historic landslide election.
Democrats - "Russia did it."
Trump sets economic records.
Democrats - "Obama did it."
Trump strikes historic immigration deal with Mexico.
Democrats - "Nothing changed."
Losing the popular vote by 3M is not what I would call a “historic landslide election “. What it did do was show how flawed the electoral college has become.
And when trump gets the unemployment rate down from 10% to 4% then he can talk about “setting economic records”.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 4:12:17 GMT
DH and I saw it last week. Only the final episode was graphic. Wish this would have been shown/made prior to the 2016 Presidential Election. I remember it all CLEARLY, having lived in NY at the time. Trump's vehement anger and hatred towards this kids was strange at the time. Nothing was proven. And after all was said and done Trump STILL didn't go back and apologize or correct the record, as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Disgusting, and I was and still am ashamed of NY employees who behaved in such a criminal, disgusting way. Those poor boys really lost their lives.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 13:48:32 GMT
Kyle Griffin..
”869 days in office.
10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump.
That's an average of 12.42 false claims a day, according to WaPo.”
”The president crossed the 10,000 threshold on April 26 and he has been averaging about 16 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 12 such claims a day."
Isn’t this a symptom of a pathological liar?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 15:47:02 GMT
Paul Waldman...
”I write about the Trump administration's corruption pretty often. But every time I do, I come across shocking stories from a few months or a year ago I had completely forgotten about. That's how bad it is.”
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 10, 2019 16:13:11 GMT
And when trump gets the unemployment rate down from 10% to 4% then he can talk about “setting economic records”. The U-6 unemployment rate (known as the real unemployment rate because it includes the underemployed and discouraged) is 7.1% as of May 2019.
Looking at the trends, it is clear that this is not due to Trump, coming down from a high of 17.1% in 2010 (likely at GWB inheritance for the Obama administration). However, Trump has continued the downward trend as it was 9.3% when he took office in 2016.
I do think though, that the heavy lifting can be credited to Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 16:28:22 GMT
And when trump gets the unemployment rate down from 10% to 4% then he can talk about “setting economic records”. The U-6 unemployment rate (known as the real unemployment rate because it includes the underemployed and discouraged) is 7.1% as of May 2019.
Looking at the trends, it is clear that this is not due to Trump, coming down from a high of 17.1% in 2010 (likely at GWB inheritance for the Obama administration). However, Trump has continued the downward trend as it was 9.3% when he took office in 2016.
I do think though, that the heavy lifting can be credited to Obama.
And what it means is, even if I were president the downward trend would have continued. But yet to hear the Republicans, even on this board, tell it, it’s all because of trump and the actions he has taken. I’m tired of the ignorance shown by so many voters. Deliberate or otherwise.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jun 10, 2019 16:50:08 GMT
The U-6 unemployment rate (known as the real unemployment rate because it includes the underemployed and discouraged) is 7.1% as of May 2019. Looking at the trends, it is clear that this is not due to Trump, coming down from a high of 17.1% in 2010 (likely at GWB inheritance for the Obama administration). However, Trump has continued the downward trend as it was 9.3% when he took office in 2016.
I do think though, that the heavy lifting can be credited to Obama. And what it means is, even if I were president the downward trend would have continued. But yet to hear the Republicans, even on this board, tell it, it’s all because of trump and the actions he has taken. I’m tired of the ignorance shown by so many voters. Deliberate or otherwise. Absolutely true. I don't, however, think it's a matter of ignorance - it's belief systems we're trying to deal with and those are almost impossible to break down because it essentially is the same as attacking the person directly which of course, instantly raises defenses so now...they don't have to listen.
It is discouraging and I wish people (on all sides) were as open to listening as they are to speaking.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 10, 2019 17:34:09 GMT
Washington (CNN)House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Monday said he has struck a deal with the Justice Department to begin providing Congress with some documents from the Mueller Report related to obstruction of justice.Nadler announced the agreement ahead of a vote scheduled for Tuesday, when the House is expected to approve a resolution to go to court to enforce its subpoenas of Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn. But a court fight appears to be no longer necessary for the Barr subpoena -- at least for the time being -- as a result of the agreement the committee struck with the Justice Department. The details of which documents would be provided to the committee were not disclosed, but Nadler said the agreement would allow all Judiciary Committee members to see "Robert Mueller's most important files ... providing us with key evidence that the Special Counsel used to assess whether the President and others obstructed justice or were engaged in other misconduct." "These documents will allow us to perform our constitutional duties and decide how to respond to the allegations laid out against the President by the Special Counsel," Nadler said. ** www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/politics/jerry-nadler-mueller-report-william-barr/index.htmlProgress?
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Jun 10, 2019 17:44:16 GMT
I think your right to live in a safe, peaceful community should win out over someone else’s right to be scary, threatening and dangerous (i.e. throwing things at strangers). Does this guy really have a right to choose not to take medication? I think it really boils down to an individual’s level of mental fitness and competence. If a person isn’t in a state of mind where they can make competent decisions for their own wellbeing and that of others in their community, then it becomes a public safety issue to just let them go on being their scary unmedicated self. I honestly don’t know what the answer is either but people are dying out on the street because they are ill, addicted and unable to make competent life decisions. Somehow I don’t think forcing someone to take some meds that could help them live more humanely is worse than that, free will or not. Ok. But what happens when that person is release and under their own control and they choose to stop their meds and strategies? Under current law in most states, it depends on whether or not the are a danger to others or to themselves. If so, they can be forced to take medications or can be hospitalized by force. It’s a hard line to draw, but they can’t be allowed to terrorize others either. The state can also force a guardianship if the person is found unable to care for themselves
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 19:48:17 GMT
Kyle Griffin..
”John Dean, asked by Jim Jordan about his Twitter criticism of Trump, says that he cannot describe his thoughts: "Mr. Jordan, I think that under the parliamentary rules of the House, I am refrained from addressing the full answer to your question." Laughter breaks out.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 23:25:59 GMT
linkReally? They really wanted to go there? From Newsweek.. “FOX NEWS HOST COMPLAINS MSNBC, CNN ARE ALL 'OPINION SHOWS' WITH 'ANTI-TRUMP' PANELS”From the article. ”Fox News host Howard Kurtz criticized MSNBC and CNN on Monday, claiming that much of the networks' programming has become overtly biased against President Donald Trump. Kurtz, who hosts Media Buzz on Fox News, appeared for an interview on Fox Business with Stuart Varney to discuss a weekend tweet by Trump attacking CNN and MSNBC. The Fox journalist argued that the networks' "anti-Trump" bias is hurting their ratings. "I think there are some fair reporters at both networks," Kurtz said. "But certainly when you turn on the primetime shows, and it's getting increasingly hard during the day, they all seem to be opinion shows," he continued. "You know, you've got these panels that are six to one anti-Trump. I mean, there's no secret about it. That's the way they are being programmed."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 23:37:46 GMT
Reuters...
“U.S. Supreme Court to hear BP unit's dispute over Montana Superfund site”
From the article.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to a hear a bid by a unit of British oil major BP Plc to avoid a lawsuit by private landowners in Montana seeking to force the company to pay for a more extensive cleanup of a Superfund hazardous waste site than what federal environmental officials had ordered.
The justices took up Atlantic Richfield Co's appeal of a lower court ruling allowing a lawsuit by a group of property owners within the sprawling site of its former Anaconda copper smelter in western Montana to proceed to trial. Atlantic Richfield already has spent $470 million on soil and ground water restoration at the site ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The company, which is backed by industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers in the case, has said the lower court's decision could lead to thousands more lawsuits nationwide against companies and further complicate federally mandated improvements to contaminated land.
The Superfund program, started in 1980, is intended to identify contaminated sites and ensure that those responsible for the pollution pay for the hazardous waste cleanup. It has been criticized over the years for slow efforts.
The Anaconda smelter, near the small community of Opportunity, Montana, operated between 1884 and 1980 and provided much of the world's copper supply. It was designated a Superfund site in 1983 to reduce arsenic contamination in residential yards, pastures and ground water.
The landowners sued in state court to restore their properties to pre-smelter conditions. Atlantic Richfield said such state law claims were barred by the EPA's actions under the 1980 Superfund law, called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.
The company also said the suit was prohibited under the U.S. Constitution's so-called Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law generally trumps state law.
In 2017, the Montana Supreme Court, the state's highest court, ruled against Atlantic Richfield, allowing the case to move forward. Appealing to the Supreme Court, Atlantic Richfield said that decision could undermine the already-complex Superfund regime and leave companies open to thousands more lawsuits. It also could be forced to redo its work at the Anaconda site, the company said.
"This is the very definition of madness," the company said in a legal brief.
President Donald Trump's administration has said the Montana court improperly ruled in favor of the landowners but agreed that the case should proceed to trial before the justices hear it.
Also on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Canada's Teck Resources Ltd of a lower federal court's decision holding the company liable under the Superfund law for pollution that settled in Washington state from a smelter in British Columbia. The company said the law cannot be applied outside U.S. borders.”
I don’t know, but suing to get the land back to what it was does not seem unreasonable or an act of madness , especially if it means reducing an agent that poisons people out of the water. Actually it seems pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 23:53:23 GMT
trump...
”Despite the Phony Witch Hunt, we will continue to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you!!”
trump is singling out the latest Rasmussen Poll that has him at a 50% approval rating while ignoring the other 7 polls taken during the same time period, that have his approval between 40-45% or an average approval rating of 44.2% and a disapproval rating of 52.7%
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 11, 2019 2:40:30 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jun 11, 2019 2:56:56 GMT
another stellar vote of confidence....
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jun 11, 2019 3:03:24 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country. Because... As a parent I don't know where I fit in this equation, but agree.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 11, 2019 3:12:04 GMT
FOX has done to our parents what our parents thought video games would do to us. = 'old people'
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 11, 2019 4:43:07 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country. The problem with modern polls is that the sample is taken only from people who answer phone calls from unknown numbers. My uneducated guess is that this population skews old, white and conservative. (Of course, so does the population of people who actually vote. We don't have a policy problem; we have a turnout problem.) Of course, I would think that the guy who loves to harp about how wrong all the polls were prior to his election would have a little more wariness regarding his own poll numbers, but then, look at who we're talking about.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Jun 11, 2019 4:51:56 GMT
FOX has done to our parents what our parents thought video games would do to us. = 'old people' Yeah, I'm a parent and considered old by gamers but I'm not so "old" that I condemn video games. Fox on the other hand....
|
|
inkedup
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,837
Jun 26, 2014 5:00:26 GMT
|
Post by inkedup on Jun 11, 2019 4:55:28 GMT
Ok. But what happens when that person is release and under their own control and they choose to stop their meds and strategies? Under current law in most states, it depends on whether or not the are a danger to others or to themselves. If so, they can be forced to take medications or can be hospitalized by force. It’s a hard line to draw, but they can’t be allowed to terrorize others either. The state can also force a guardianship if the person is found unable to care for themselves Ideally, unmedicated, dangerous people are not allowed to terrorize others. In a system that is completely underfunded and overwhelmed, dangerous individuals do not receive the treatment they need. My husband and I used to own a retail store. There was a homeless couple who panhandled in our shopping center. The man was a brilliant musician and would busk with a violin and a banjo. His partner was volatile and violent. She caused thousands of dollars in damage to the Warehouse Music that was next door to us - destroyed and urinated on merchandise, broke huge windows and spit on the employees who were trying to restrain her. She was back in the shopping center about 48 hours later. This woman did the same thing to several of the shops in our area until she and her partner disappeared for good. There simply aren't enough resources dedicated to effectively addressing the mental health crisis in this country.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 11, 2019 8:18:37 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country. I read something today that made me wonder, it said Rasmussen (sp?) polls were only to those with a land line. Are all polls like that? I’m making assumptions here, but it seems that is missing a large portion of the population that is less likely to support him. The only people I know with a landline are my mom (72) and Grandad (93). Or maybe more people are just truly awful and/or uninformed than I thought. Eta: Merge just read your post, good point I hadn’t considered and I think we were thinking along the same lines.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jun 11, 2019 10:07:32 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country. Because there are enough voters who would rather have a white corrupt imbecile man than any intelligent woman or POC.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 13:06:16 GMT
Seriously, if trump supporters believe trump has their best interests at heart then they fooling themselves. What they don’t get is that trump is busy removing any protections for the little guy that stands in his way or his buddies way for making a buck.
Washington Post..
“Mick Mulvaney fires all 25 members of consumer watchdog’s advisory board”
“Mick Mulvaney, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, fired the agency’s 25-member advisory board Wednesday, days after some of its members criticized his leadership of the watchdog agency.
The CFPB said it will revamp the Consumer Advisory Board, known as the CAB, in the fall with all new members.
The panel has traditionally played an influential role in advising the CFPB’s leadership on new regulations and policies. But some members, who include prominent consumer advocates, academics and industry executives, began to complain that Mulvaney was ignoring them and making unwise decisions about the agency’s future.
On Monday, 11 CAB members held a news conference and criticized Mulvaney for, among other things, canceling legally required meetings with the group.
On Wednesday, group members were notified that they were being replaced — and that they could not reapply for spots on the new board.
In a statement, the agency’s spokesman, John Czwartacki, took a final swipe at the group. “The outspoken members of the Consumer Advisory Board seem more concerned about protecting their taxpayer funded junkets to Washington, D.C., and being wined and dined by the Bureau than protecting consumers,” he said.
Revamping the board is part of the CFPB’s new approach to reaching out to stakeholders to “increase high quality feedback,” the bureau said in an email to the group. The CFPB will hold more town halls and roundtable discussions, the letter said, and the new CAB will have fewer members.
But the dismissal of the members is likely to exacerbate concerns among Democrats that Mulvaney is weakening the consumer watchdog.
“Mick Mulvaney has no intention of putting consumers above financial firms that cheat them. This is what happens when you put someone in charge of an agency they think shouldn’t exist,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who helped conceive of the bureau, said in a statement.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said: “Mulvaney has proven once again he would rather cozy up with payday lenders and industry insiders than listen to consumer advocates who want to make sure hard-working Americans are not cheated by financial scams.”
As a congressman, Mulvaney repeatedly criticized the agency, calling it a “joke” and saying it needed to be reined in. Since being appointed acting director by President Trump in November, Mulvaney has launched a top-to-bottom review of the bureau’s operations, stripped enforcement powers from a CFPB unit responsible for pursuing discrimination cases and proposed that lawmakers curb the agency’s powers.
Last week, Mulvaney sided with payday lenders who sued the CFPB to block implementation of new industry regulations. The CFPB filed a joint motion with the payday lenders asking the judge to delay the case until the bureau completes a review of the rules, which could take years.
Firing current members of the advisory board is a huge red flag in this administration’s ongoing erosion of critical consumer financial protections that help average families,” said Chi Chi Wu, an attorney for the National Consumer Law Center who has been a board member since 2016.
The Consumer Advisory Board is required under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law. Members also included the head of retail banking at Citi, the founder of NerdWallet and a director at Texas Appleseed, a public interest law center. Members of two other boards — the Community Bank Advisory Council and the Credit Union Advisory Council — were also dismissed.
In a 30-minute call Wednesday morning to announce the move, a CFPB official sparred with some board members surprised by the decision. “We’ve decided we’re going to start the advisory groups with new membership, to bring in these new perspectives and new dialogue,” said Anthony Welcher, the CFPB’s policy associate director for external affairs, according to a recording of the call obtained by The Washington Post.
During the call, Welcher said revamping the CAB would save the agency “multi-hundred-thousand dollars a year” by not having its periodic meetings in Washington. But several board members objected, noting that they would be willing to pay their own way to attend the meetings. You need that cost savings so trump can play golf every weekend at the tax payer’s expense.
“The new bureau leadership has never met with any of us to determine, and even have a sense of, whether this is valuable advice that the bureau is receiving,” said Josh Zinner, chief executive of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.
The board met with Mulvaney’s predecessor, Richard Cordray, three times a year, according to several members. But Mulvaney repeatedly canceled meetings, citing his busy schedule. In addition to leading the CFPB, Mulvaney is the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Their dismissal “is another move indicating Acting Director Mick Mulvaney is only interested in obtaining views from his inner circle, and has no interest in hearing the perspectives of those who work with struggling American families,” said Ann Baddour, chair of the CAB and director of the Fair Financial Services Project at Texas Appleseed.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 13:10:08 GMT
trump 16 minutes ago..
”Maria, Dagan, Steve, Stuart V - When you are the big “piggy bank” that other countries have been ripping off for years (to a level that is not to be believed), Tariffs are a great negotiating tool, a great revenue producers and, most importantly, a powerful way to get......”
Get what? Will we ever know?
It took him 22 minutes to tell us what we are suppose to get..
“Companies to come to the U.S.A and to get companies that have left us for other lands to come back home. We stupidly lost 30% of our auto business to Mexico. If the Tariffs went on at the higher level, they would all come back, and pass. But very happy with the deal I made,...”
Ah the thought is completed. Only took him 25 minutes from the first tweet to the third to make his point.
”If Mexico produces (which I think they will). Biggest part of deal with Mexico has not yet been revealed! China is similar, except they devalue currency and subsidize companies to lessen effect of 25% Tariff. So far, little effect to consumer. Companies will relocate to U.S.”
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 11, 2019 14:19:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 15:22:17 GMT
link
My dad was in the carpenters union and after one long strike he said, no matter what we gain, we can’t make up what we lost during the strike. While this isn’t a strike situation, the same principle holds. No matter what some will gain, not everybody will make up what they lost. PolitiFact... “Kamala Harris claims Trump’s tariffs cost $1.4 billion per month. That’s Mostly True”“California Sen. and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris has repeatedly attacked President Trump over the cost of his tariffs. Recently, she said they amount to a huge monthly tax on working Americans. "Let’s call it what it is. It’s a trade tax," Harris claimed at the California Democratic Party Convention in San Francisco earlier this month. "I like to call it Trump’s trade tax. And his trade tax is taking $1.4 billion out of working people’s pockets every month." We reported on this claim earlier. But we did not initially attach a rating to it. Harris isn’t the only one to describe Trump’s tariffs as a tax. Economists and tax reform advocates have done the same. By definition, a tariff is a tax or duty to be paid on a class of imports or exports. PolitiFact National examined who pays for the tariffs on Chinese goods, for example, and concluded: "In many if not most cases, those costs are passed on to American consumers, whether it’s directly on the products hit by the tariffs or through an impact on U.S. companies who use raw materials hit with tariffs." For this fact check, we wanted to know whether Trump’s actions are costing as much as Harris claims. So, we focused on the second portion of her statement, that the tariffs are "taking $1.4 billion out of working people’s pockets every month." Our research The senator’s claim is supported by a March 2019 study titled "The Impact of the 2018 Trade War on U.S. Prices and Welfare." It was conducted by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a London-based think tank. It concluded: "Overall, using standard economic methods, we find that the full incidence of the tariff falls on domestic consumers, with a reduction in U.S. real income of $1.4 billion per month by the end of 2018." It doesn’t say, however, that the impact was limited to "working people." Stephen Redding, one of the report’s authors and an economics professor at Princeton University, told us by email that Harris’ claim "is a correct characterization of our research." He clarified that "the impact is for the US economy as a whole, which includes all consumers." The CEPR study includes research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton and Columbia universities. It reviewed all Trump administration tariffs imposed in 2018 on several countries, including China, on imports from solar panels to washing machines to steel and aluminum. The $1.4 billion figure does not include any impact from Trump’s recent threat to place tariffs on Mexico. Harris’ position on trade Harris told McClatchy this month she opposes the free trade deal Trump signed with Mexico and Canada last year, which updates the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. "I’m not in favor of the USMCA, what I call NAFTA 2.0," she told the news organization, referring to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. She has previously said she would not have voted for the original NAFTA deal, saying in an interview on CNN in April, "I believe that we can do a better job to protect American workers." Harris also came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, an Obama-backed trade deal between 12 Asian and Pacific nations, during her 2016 Senate race, McClatchy reported. Trump ultimately pulled the country out of TPP after he was elected. ‘A very credible piece of work’ Several economists not affiliated with the CEPR study on the cost of Trump's tariffs told us it is reliable. "It is a very credible piece of work. For the moment, it is the defining economic evaluation of Trump’s trade policies," Gary Hufbauer, senior fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an email. He added that Harris’ statement may understate the effect of Trump’s tariffs on households, noting a $3 billion per month cost cited in the report. Redding, the report’s co-author, described the $3 billion an additional tax cost, "which is a transfer from importers and consumers to the US government." He maintained, however, that the $1.4 billion is the most correct figure to use when referencing the impact on consumers, describing that as the "welfare cost (reduction in real income) to the US economy as a whole." A spokesman for Harris’ campaign cited a CNBC.com article that summarized the CEPR study. Our rating California Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed President Trump’s tariffs are "taking $1.4 billion out of working people’s pockets every month." A March 2019 study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research generally supports her claim. It notes, however, that was the impact for 2018 and that all consumers felt the effect of the tariffs not just working people. There’s no way yet to know the full impact of the president’s tariffs this year. We rate Harris’ claim Mostly True.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 6:42:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 15:58:19 GMT
linkProof again the Republicans believe people chose to be poor. From NPR.. “Trump Wants To Limit Aid For Low-Income Americans. A Look At His Proposals”“If you're poor or low-income in the U.S. and take advantage of government safety net programs, you could be affected by a number of new rules and actions proposed by the Trump administration. Most of the changes are still pending, and anti-poverty groups are trying to stop them from going into effect. Some of the proposals already face legal challenges. President Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to get more people off government aid and into the workforce so they can become self-sufficient. To help do that, he issued an executive order last year to reduce poverty "by promoting opportunity and economic mobility."
In it, Trump called on federal agencies to streamline existing welfare programs, strengthen work requirements and make sure that taxpayer money is spent on "those who are truly in need." But anti-poverty advocates say the administration's proposals would hurt, rather than help, poor Americans. They say it will make it more difficult for those trying to become self-sufficient by denying them food, housing and medical assistance when they need it most. They really are trying to use every agency to make life harder for people who are low-income," says Elizabeth Lower-Basch, director of income and work supports at the Center for Law and Social Policy. Deborah Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs, which represents about 100 anti-poverty groups nationwide, calls the volume of proposals targeting the safety net "head spinning." Here are some of the main proposals and their status: You have to read the article to see what trump has in store for those who chose to be poor. It’s quite a list
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Jun 11, 2019 16:54:23 GMT
I don’t understand how his approval ratings could even average 44%. How can there be so many people who support him? He’s so destructive of everything that’s good in this country. I read something today that made me wonder, it said Rasmussen (sp?) polls were only to those with a land line. Are all polls like that? I’m making assumptions here, but it seems that is missing a large portion of the population that is less likely to support him. The only people I know with a landline are my mom (72) and Grandad (93). Or maybe more people are just truly awful and/or uninformed than I thought. Eta: Merge just read your post, good point I hadn’t considered and I think we were thinking along the same lines. I think this is a big component.
Our family has no land line. 4 of the 5 of us are registered voters who show up every single election. None of us support Trump. But we won't get called because we don't have a land line, but more importantly...none of us will pick up from a number we don't recognize.
|
|