Slashdot Mirror

Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?

I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation?

Here's a video of him on the FOX Business Twitter feed saying:

.@POTUS: "This change, along with a lower business tax rate, would likely give the typical American household around a $4,000 pay raise."

and a press release from Speaker Paul Ryan's press office quoting a study from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) -- a US agency within the Executive Office of the President -- saying:

The study finds that as a result of corporate tax reform alone, on average, American families will see a wage increase of at least $4,000 annually.

And there are numerous other examples of Trump and the GOP pushing this prediction.

So... Much... Winning...

Trump has said he's mostly ok with the Republican congess' plan fwiw.

President Obama, 'It wasnt me'...

• Government Shutdown: "Washington needs to get out of the habit of governing by crisis" , blame Washington
• Weak employment number s, Blame Congress , forget the fact that the democrats have 40 job creation bills they haven't acted on.
• The Economy is sluggish , blame the Europe..
• Structural Problems are preventing economic growth: its the ATM Machines in airport Kiosks
• Businesses have lost their edge causing slow job growth, blame the American Businesses , forget tax hikes and regulations imposed by the administration
• US Economy is slow and jobs are not on the rise, blame High Energy Prices lets not talk about opposition to the American Energy Initiative, Shutting down Coal Production. After all Nuclear Power is the way to go... just ask Japan.
• Debt ceiling, spending out of control. blame republicans, blame congress. Wait.. doesnt the President sign all those spending bills?

Failure is an opportunity.
If you blame someone else,
there is no end to the blame.

Therefore the Master
fulfills her own obligations
and corrects her own mistakes.
She does what she needs to do
and demands nothing of others.

--Lao Tzu

I think the problem we are facing is a lack of good leadership.

You're the one positing that there's some sort of secrecy attached to the bill.

I posited nothing of the kind. I just pointed out that the bill was WRITTEN behind closed doors and the fact that Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"

What in Obama's stated positions or legislative record makes you think that he ISN'T a centrist?

His expressed desire for a single payer health care system? His apologies for the United States on the global stage? His desire to impose a carbon tax that will increase the price of every consumer good in the United States? The "stimulus" bill that sent hundreds of billions of dollars to his friends in the public sector unions? His extreme hostility towards the 2nd amendment as a state legislator?

His eventual health-care plan is ridiculously tame

Nobody outside of the progressive movement thinks that the HCR legislation was "ridiculously tame". The Federal Government is taking away my ability to determine for myself whether or not I need health insurance and what kind I want to buy. That's stateism, pure and simple.

He's stated that he's willing to compromise heavily over the Bush tax cuts.

No he hasn't. He has defaulted to his campaign position of raising taxes on the "rich" (arbitrarily defined as $250,000) while leaving them the same on everybody else.

Obama is a centrist, a moderate, pro-business Democrat.

Pro-business politicians do not advocate policies that would impose massive cost increases on every business in the country. Pro-business politicians do not threaten to punish and/or try to intimidate private enterprise for refusing to toe the party line.

Stop claiming that he's Ralph bleeping Nader or something

You have a real talent for making up shit that I've never said.

that anything left of Ronald Reagan is unacceptable, because you won't accept a centrist compromise.

I'm not a big fan of Reagan. I'm socially moderate to liberal (depending on the issue) and fiscally conservative. Not much I would have agreed with Reagan on, though it's a moot point since I wasn't old enough to vote (or even understand the issues) when he was in office. Got another box you want to try and pigeonhole me into?

I'm not an american nor I ever set foot in it but even I know that you grossly failed to provide an accurate quote of that statement. I don't know if you did that intentionally in order to try to deceive anyone or if you just so happen to be just an ignorant fool that had enough memory to write that quote without checking it first. Either way, here is the correct quote:

from Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

If you just happened not to get that quote, the meaning behind what your Speaker said was that the american people would only be able to trully understand what that bill meant when all the "fog of the controversy", which is a reference to all the FUD and propaganda which was thrown at the bill, subsided. That statement does not, by no mean, means "you only get to see the rules after we implement it". It means "there was so much crap thrown at it that you will only be able to view it objectively after it passes, after the FUD attacks have ceassed".

As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.

Here's the full quote:

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

It seems more likely to me that she meant that all of the nonsense spouted by the extreme right (death panels and whatnot) made it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on what the bill was about. And that once it was passed all of that FUD would probably stop dominating the news so that the real information wouldn't be obscured anymore.

You are absolutely correct, in a classical sense (read basic econ) the commodity markets are dominated by supply and demand. However, due to some loopholes in how the commodities are traded the prices can be significantly swayed one way or another by speculation. See here and here (sorry not the best sources I didn't have time to find better ones).

You are also correct in pointing out that I was mistaken. A group, such as OPEC, can and routinely does influence the market by curtailing or increasing supply (though it is not always effective). I was mistaken in my terminology I specifically meant one company. But you also cannot deny that speculation plays a significant role in price, do you really think that demand has changed by that much as to cause the drop in oil prices seen in the last two years (approx 50%)? The demand is a speculation of what will happen in the future, it's a guess, nobody knows what China or the US (two of the largest consumers of oil) will really need in the future, some bet it will be high and the price goes up or they bet low and the price goes down (note the correlation in oil prices with news about the status of the economy - no mention of changes in supply or actual demand, just guesses right or wrong after all it's futures).

Just because it's funny to say "Straight from the horse's mouth":
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1109

But here's the primary link:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

They're using the endangerment clause ("air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare") of the Clean Air Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521----000-.html), intended to be used to regulate actually dangerous emissions, to regulate CO2.

Enough links? =)

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it

This is very shady legislation.

Just in case you haven't seen this yet; Job Losses In Recent Recessions

> Who writes this "poor economy" crap?

When you're reading to pull your head out of the sand and stop ignoring facts... The Dept of Labor for one.

--
Stop Racism. Support the HUMAN Race.

Batman is, as usual, a completely biased right-wing idiot. FISA had almost nothing to do with the walkout yesterday. That there is such confusion about it on this site is just another demonstration of how really wonderful and effective the right wing are at obfuscating reality.

Ringdev, your reasons 1 and 3 are just plain wrong. Republicans didn't prevent the contempt issue from being "settled". Democrats had a quorum and passed the contempt of congress resolution yesterday.

Which leaves your reason 2, which is closer to the truth. The real reason these idiots walked out are:
1. To make a stink about not passing the telecom immunity act the way the President wanted.
2. To spare themselves the popular heat of voting against the contempt of congress resolution. Had they done so, they're going to look awfully phony once Miers and Bolton testify and the Justice Department scandal blows up again.

The Conference is the official communications arm of the majority party in Congress. Their function is to talk about legislative and policy issues, not political issues (such as fundraising, etc.).

As an official leadership office within the legislative branch of government, the Conference's gop.gov qualifies to reside within the .gov namespace. The name GOP is derivative of the office title, "House Republican Conference."

The second disagreement is a rather interesting one. If all .gov domain names need to be "subsidiary" of the top-level entity, then all cabinet agencies must be of this form: defense.whitehouse.gov, irs.treasury.whitehouse.gov because all executive branch agencies and departments are arms of the White House. Exactly what purpose would that serve, other than to make it incredibly inconvenient to find information you need?

The legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government. If a cabinet-level executive agency can get its own name, then the legislative branch is entitled to the same access. That's why the Speaker of the House has speaker.gov and the Majority Leader has freedom.gov.

The Speaker is mentioned in the Constitution as third in line to the presidency. His office, therefore, is on the same constitutional footing as any cabinet secretary's office.

By the way, other cabinet agencies are using non-derivative domain names, such as "seniors.gov" and "time.gov". Their purpose is to deliver information to the public, not to force people to use the U.S. Government Manual every time they need to find their tax forms.

This is not a contested issue. These domain names are already registered and have been found by the registrar to be in compliance with the RFC.