Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Attacks Amazon, Incorrectly Claiming That It Owns The Washington Post For Tax Purposes (recode.net)
The Washington Post, which has been critical of Donald Trump and his administration in its coverage, has become the latest victim in Trump's Twitter tirade. On Wednesday, he accused Amazon of not "paying internet taxes (which they should)," adding that the company is using The Washington Post "in a scheme to dodge" the taxes. Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does. At any rate, Trump's furious tweets come a day after The Washington Post reported that a fake issue of Time magazine with Trump on the cover was hanging in some of the president's golf clubs. The timing of this is also awkward because just last week the president met with Bezos and other top executives to discuss ways the White House can modernize government and aid the tech industry. But the two have a long history. As Recode reminds: Meanwhile, Amazon is about to embark on what could be a lengthy government antitrust review of its bid to buy Whole Foods. Already looming large over the roughly $14 billion deal are the president's own comments: He has previously attacked Bezos and claimed the Post is a tax-dodging scheme for Amazon. "He thinks I'll go after him for antitrust," Trump said at one point during his campaign. "Because he's got a huge antitrust problem, because he's controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they are doing." Months later, Trump charged: "Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems, they are going to have such problems." Meanwhile, Bezos isn't one to shy about his anti-Trump views either. At one point during the election, Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft, with the hashtag "sendDonaldtospace."
But it's accurate.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
BLUE ORIGIN IS FAKE SPACE!
Why the hell does anyone still care?
Don't get me wrong, the president of the US is a pretty important person and whatever he does has some effect on the world. But do we really have to hear every fart he passes? Who gives a shit about this anymore?
Wake me when he DOES something.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He really is the president America deserves, he's an incredibly apt reflection of the population-at-large.
It's only smart if it's Trump avoiding taxes legally. The rules are different for anyone not lobbying him directly.
Distinction without difference... The sentiment expressed is still perfectly plausible:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Donald Turmp hates the Washington Post because it accurately reports on his treasonous crimes.
I'm sorry that the Washington post documented your carelessly executed treason, Moscow Donald.
Before the election
Dec. 10, 2015
Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).
Late 2015
British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).
March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).
March 21
During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).
March 28
Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could Ãoegreatly benefit the Putin Government.Ã His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)
April 27
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).
June
At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).
June 15
A hacker calling himself ÃoeGuccifer 2.0Ã releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).
July
At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).
July 7
Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).
July 11 or 12
Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).
July 18
At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).
Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's ÃoeLock her up!à chant. ÃoeIf I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did,à Flynn said, ÃoeI would be in jail todayà (C-Span, July 18, 2016).
July 22
Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).
Jul. 27
During his
Making Amazon Great Again
A tax dodger calling out another tax dodger, gotta love it!
What's next? calling out people for grabbing pussy?
we dont "allow" anything with ireland, they are their own nation with their own laws
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
..screaming about companies evading taxes, while he passes legislature creating more tax dodges for the wealthy elite.
Is there some drug or something i need to take that makes all this somehow make sense?
Trump seems unaware that TrumpCare is a giant tax cut for the rich by repealing the taxes that funded ObamaCare.
A senator who supports the bill left the meeting at the White House with a sense that the president did not have a grasp of some basic elements of the Senate plan — and seemed especially confused when a moderate Republican complained that opponents of the bill would cast it as a massive tax break for the wealthy, according to an aide who received a detailed readout of the exchange. Mr. Trump said he planned to tackle tax reform later, ignoring the repeal's tax implications, the staff member added.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/us/health-care-bill-trump-pence.html
We allow companies to pretend that income earned elsewhere, say in our own country, can be fed to an artificial Irish entity that does zero work, in order to park money there without paying what is due on the taxes.
So they benefit from all the roads, law enforcement, fire services, environmental controls, public education, and manage to get out of paying for it with a surreptitous act of money laundering.
I think the jab is that the Post's only value is in it's ability to lose money to be written off for tax purposes. It's not a commentary on the practice of writing off money-losing assets to pay fewer taxes on money making assets.
I'm really confused about the president's position on dodging taxes. If poor people don't pay taxes, that's bad. But if a rich person gets a tax break, that's good. If one of Trump's businesses, or he himself, avoids taxes, that's just his business expertise. But if Jeff Bezos does it, that's bad again.
Help me out here. I'm really confused...
The tax information we do have on Trump indicates that he has taken advantage of rolling over losses to reduce taxes, so, in reality, even if Amazon were doing what Trump said, Trump's done the same damned thing.
Just another bizarre outburst from the Tweeter-in-Chief
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The interesting thing about this is that he's only concerned about tax dodging when it involves a company he doesn't like. I'm sure there are plenty of tax loopholes that is businesses have been able to use over the years.
I think almost everyone knows that businesses don't pay the official tax rates, and the largest ones are able to pay zero or get tax refunds in some cases because they're able to buy loopholes and exploit them. Even small businesses, who are the most vocal about it, structure their transactions to avoid taxes. Wage-earners are about the only taxpayers who don't get these benefits because documented W-2 and 1099 income is directly tracked and taxed at the income tax rate. But, ask any small business owner what entity owns their car, house and personal debt -- I guarantee you the answer is "John Smith Enterprises, Inc." It's way too easy for individuals to just set up a corporation and filter every personal expense they incur through it. It's not technically legal of course, but that doesn't stop it from happening. And then those same people turn around and complain about being taxed and regulated to death...those arguments ring hollow for me.
are "Internet Taxes"? There is no over-all Federal-level sales tax. As of April 1st, 2017 (two months ago) Amazon started collecting all sales tax for states that have a sales tax, 45 states in all.
But, honestly, we've come to expect this from Trump. He may actually understand how sales tax is collected, but this type of tweet is aimed at his low-information supporters to stir their rage against various targets Trump picks for them. Whatever it takes to keep the masses angry at anyone who "opposes" him, and to keep everyone confused.
No, you're wrong.
Amazon is a public company, with stock traded on NASDAQ. Ownership is over 63% institutional. Jeff Bezos is the Chariman, President, CEO, and a large stockholder, but by no means "owns" Amazon.
The Washington Post is a privately held company, which Jeff Bezos purchased through a holding company (Nash Holdings, LLC) for $250 million in 2013. Yes, he indirectly "owns" The Washington Post.
Your descriptions of writing off of losses from WP to cover gains from Amazon is grossly inaccurate and ignorant of how business structures and taxes work in the United States.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Usually, I moderate, today Ill reply.
Your wrong. -Everything- Chief Bozo says is news. If Chief Bozo disses the largest tech company in the world, that Big News. For me at least, being a cloud architect, and I regard that profession as quite nerdsy.
This why we need a businessman as president. Someone in business should be able to comprehend that a person can own many companies and not having each company interact with each other.
But we don't have a businessman as president we have a Son of a businessman who used the wealth and fame to more or less just maintain what he got, vs. Actually growing the business. Because if he just did normal investments with the money his dad gave him, he could be much richer.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft...
Trump's repeated failure to inform himself even slightly about the topics he involves himself in has so far cost him nothing.
Let's up the ante a little.
Offer Trump a place in history as the first political leader ever to take a trip into space. Offer him the choice of two tickets, both free: one would feature cramped quarters and extremely basic food for an extended trip, the other, the special "QV Laika Ticket", would feature luxurious accommodations for a considerably shorter, hotter trip.
Let him choose whichever one he likes. Since Trump has doubtless heard the term QV before, we can hope he makes the right choice.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Story explaining that the FBI investigation into Flynn is retaliation for him standing up for a female FBI agent being sexually harassed by McCabe. Don't know McCable? He is the one that took over $500,000 "donation" for his wife's campaign from the DNC for her Congressional run WHILE he was investigating Hillary's email server.
How about that?
Takes bribes from DNC. Check
Obstructs justice and finds Clinton clear (thanks bribes). Check
Sexually harasses subordinates. Check
Retaliates by abusing his power against people who helped people he sexually harassed. Check.
Glad to see you think taking bribes, harassing subordinates, and abusing power for personal revenge is ok.
You are a piece of crap like McCabe.
Do I need to go over the rest of your points? Or is obliterating your first one to this level enough?
Bezos could sue Trump for his 1-click twitter posts. I think I read that the patent is expiring this year.
You mean like how Trump used Breitbart "news" to spread mostly false information?
The worst thing about Trump is that he's guilty of everything he complains about on twitter. People affiliated with a political party always ignore the hypocrisy of their representatives...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Trump's new "internet tax", whatever that is, is absolutely something to do with technology, even if it's some fake tax he's dreamed up while drinking his covfefe.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
We need people well-versed in economics to run our public policy machine. Not just people who took economics in college, but people who have pushed the boundaries.
Business isn't economics. What's good for business is good for a business, but not necessarily good for the economy as a whole. That isn't to say we can't accomplish things directly-beneficial to businesses and the economy, rather than things which have an indirect benefit to businesses by strengthening our economy. In reverse reasoning: taxing by revenue or jacking up payroll taxes would be bad for our economy and directly bad for businesses; thus there may be existing situations which, if remediated, are good for businesses and good for the economy.
So here's an economics perspective on one small piece.
Business payroll taxes are essentially an increase in wages without that increase going to the hands of the worker. That is: A business pays $60k to employ you, but you only get $45k, upon which you pay taxes. If you're not involved in making something which generates revenue beyond the cost of that $60k diffused through the time you put into each unit of that something (that includes any involvement in any activity the business requires to continue to function and produce that thing), then you're not drawing in enough money for the business to pay you. That means prices must cover your wages, and it means that prices are adjusted to a $60k wage while you receive a $45k wage.
A payroll tax cut bringing that down to $55k means that any pressure on prices can yield roughly 8% further. If you have sufficient competition, your competitors may then gain an advantage (and profits) undercutting you a further 8%, increasing that pressure. The lower costs reduce risk, because a market dip is not as costly and thus doesn't have as strong a financial impact (it's 8% less severe), which stabilizes the business as well.
Such price reduction means that consumers can purchase more (the difference). This kind of price reduction doesn't involve reducing wage-labor hours, but rather wages, without reducing wages received by the employee. That means no job loss, yet greater demand--jobs gained. Technically, that's active labor force growth (the same kind of economic growth as population growth), although I would argue that finding a way to reduce the payroll tax as such without reducing the effectiveness of government services rendered is a form of technical progress.
So that would be good for business (lower costs) and good for the economy.
That's a particular example. It's relevant to me because I worked out how to improve our social security structure and remediate many of the problems with modern welfare with a sharp reduction in individual retained taxes, a 0.9% marginal reduction in payroll taxes, and a 2.5% marginal reduction in business income (profits) taxes. Tax cuts across the board, while providing broad coverage for the welfare and security of the American people in the lowest and middle classes.
Economics, finance, and business, all at once. Being a polymath kind of helps, I guess.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
VAT is regressive and non-representative.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Michael Flynn colluded with Russian spies, took Russian bribes, and lied on the security clearance forms designed to identify this type of treasonous behavior.
Michael Flynn and Paul Montfort retroactively registered as foreign agents, because in their time with Trump they were secret foreign agents.
I guess you just don't care about this obvious, well documented treason because your only response is to attempt to change the subject with an article from a right wing fake news and propaganda site.
Undisputed facts? Obama directly confronted Putin about the cyber activities and in turn ordered US intelligence to plant "spyware" that could be used in retaliation. It is true he tried to keep it under wraps, though.
Remember, they asked Republican controlled congress to investigate but they refused.
Be careful what you label as "undisputed facts"...
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
...we need to scrutinize it in ways we would never do with other people...
The level of scrutiny is directly proportional to the propensity for conveying inaccurate information.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
And Trump didn't even claim ownership, he simply linked the two:
It should be obvious that Bezos bought the WaPo to promote his political views and the interests of his corporate empire, just like Carlos Slim bought into the NYT.
Except if it was Obama. Then we make shit up about how it was going to destroy the US and figure out some under the table way to dismantle it and stop it. Imagine the audacity of a Black person thinking they can make rules in the US for Whitey to follow. Fools.
When you see the attack words "Incorrectly claiming" in the TITLE of the article, how can one take seriously the article or the one who created the article?
What's the problem? Somebody claims something, the claim is incorrect, therefore that somebody is incorrectly claiming something. Elementary logic, elementary English. And how do you get from there to Political Hack site?
...the Post's only value is in it's ability to lose money to be written off for tax purposes
I'm sure the ability to spread CIA-approved propaganda doesn't enter into it.
Perhaps Mr. Trump should consider not throwing so many stones as he stands in a glass house in a tax haven far, far away.
He should lead by example.
Trump says somthing it's true. You can take it to the bank.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
For every billionaire on the Democratic Party's side, there are a dozen backing the Republicans. Not to mention that the Koch Brothers have contributed more to right wing causes than all three of the people you mention added together. And Fox News, right wing radio and a whole raft of conservative media vastly outnumber the few openly left wing media outlets. For that matter, the right wing bias stays just about the same even if you include hard news media that strive for accuracy. Accuracy, of course, doesn't favour conservatives.
But don't let little things like facts and common sense get in the way of playing the victim card. Conservatives do that so very, very well!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Where are the payroll taxes 25%?
offer him a comfy seat right inside one of the engine nozzles....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
We need people well-versed in economics to run our public policy machine. Not just people who took economics in college, but people who have pushed the boundaries.
We should be pushing for DIVERSITY in our leadership. And I don't mean the Hijacked description of diversity called ethnic diversity.... I mean Intellectual Diversity and Diversity of Experience is even more important.
We could start by Step 1. discounting political experience as a qualification to run for elected offices, especially discount lawyers --- instead of having lawyers be legislators - appoint them "Legal assistants" -- In other words, lawyers help to understand the laws but shouldn't have the role in decisionmaking.
Step 2. Play up practical domain experience in decisionmaking, Get more scientists and engineers in office.
Step 3. Implement Term limits for all legislator positions. You serve your 6 years house and/or 12 years senate, after leaving office you must take a 6 year break before running again, and that is IT... no more legislating for you.
Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism. A good president would know how to surround himself with a strong set of skilled people coming from different backgrounds with a variety opinions that line up with the larger portion of the population. The idea of party over country is getting old and its not helping the little guy. I compare it to when a player on a hockey team intentionally hurts another player on the other team and his team goes on to defend him regardless of how wrong the player was. It's this same sheep mentality that the choke point of many issues in the United States.
While he seems to own Time magazine, because he prints out magazine covers with his stupid face on it to hang in his golf clubs.
Sad.
How low can one sink, he must live in a hole a trillion miles deep.
[citation needed]
. You don't like being called Racists. So much so that we can't even have a conversation about race any more. Sheesh, and you call us Snowflakes.
When everything is racist having a conversation about race and calling people racist is retarded and a waste of time. Or do I need to go to a progressive university like Evergreen to understand your version of racism?
It's a dead cat he's tossing on the table to distract from the same fake Time magazine cover linked in TFS.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Rolling over losses is legitimate. It's not even remotely shady. Do you have any idea about what you're talking about?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
The word of caution is if you win that (Chances are you don't need to worry); people have very bad misfortunes, and are rarely happy - it can destroy family and relationships, many a lottery winner wound up bankrupt or committed suicide -- you are first of all best to keep your identity secret, because you're bound to have so many desperate people with all manner of sob stories coming to ask for a handout, that if you handed them $100 a piece, you'd be bankrupt.
Take your winning ticket, lock it up securely in your safe: Don't tell a soul, and start contacting advisors to help setup the organizational Trust structure that will allow you to claim your winning ticket within the allowed time and remain anonymous and help you optimize your outcomes and happiness.
By the way 40 Million X 1.09 ^ 65 = 10 Billion
In other words... 9% Annualized returns over 65 years will do it.
Interest rates are low these days, because of Fed and government meddling,
that suppresses interest rates for debt and forces people to the higher-risk equities markets
if you want to generate returns, but there have been times in the past where you
could buy 40 Million worth of bonds and lock in a rate such as 12% - 15% interest.
At 12% it would be 29 years to turn 40 Million into 10 Billion.
Not true. The key number is corporate tax + capital gains. The effective tax rate on investment is a very competitive number in the first world. Has to be, capital seeks returns.
Nations with no corporate tax have high capital gains taxes. VAT is orthogonal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He's got more of a clue than the president...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Yes, and if Amazon did buy the Washington Post to take advantage of any losses, that's perfectly legitimate as well, not that that is actually what appears to be happening.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In today's America, facts are leftist propaganda, and need to be "balanced" with alternative facts approved by the Dear (Orange) Leader.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Here in Oklahoma, we are thankful for the electoral college. It did exactly what it was supposed to do. What is it supposed to do, you ask? Simple: It's there to prevent tyranny of the majority so large population states, like California and New York, don't have an over weighted say vs smaller states like Oklahoma and Wyoming.
If we had a direct population vote as you insinuate, then Los Angeles alone would overwhelm all of the votes of Oklahoma and Wyoming which deprives those states of representation. The electoral college assures their views are represented.
Sorry if you don't like it but it's the law of the land.....and for good reason.
So you're saying that if you can eliminate an expense (tax) for free (i.e. without it being a tradeoff that comes with a downside) then it's all upside. I don't think any person would argue against you on that.
Wow, cool!!
Hey, by the way, were you able to do it while also creating the above huge and extremely difficult condition?
It seems that if we're going to play businessman and economist, it might be more challenging and interesting to talk about the harder problems, instead of the absurdly easy ones, such a proving "a good thing without a bad thing is a net good thing." Still, I suppose it's possible you have presented the proof in a more modern and accessible way, which people might prefer over the ancient Greeks' coverage of the same subject.
Your penultimate paragraph is a lot more interesting (oh, you tease, you!!) than the rest of the post that you wrote about fundamentals of addition and subtraction. It looks like you suddenly switched topics, but I guess the whole point is that you're trying to hint that you were able to provide the no-downsides condition! You solved one of the hardest government policy problems of the modern world? I'd think a polymath would want to expand on that, even if just for the bragging rights.
It's time to stop teasing. Indulge yourself, and let Slashdot be the forum in which you seize your place in the history books. Go on!
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race?
Because we have seen the opinion of the rest of the human race in this regard is about as valuable as spit, being prone to manipulation of opinion by the global elite.
And because most of the people of the U.S. only vaguely care about what the president does, since he has little impact over their lives in the end. It's not like other countries where you have to be scared of what the Glorious Leader thinks of what you say or do lest you be imprisoned or worse.
You can deride him all you want but it's not like your own leaders are any better and in a lot of ways they are vastly worse. There are not many other countries I'd rather be living in currently than the U.S...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does.
Quick sanity check: As long as Bezos runs Amazon, Amazon effectively owns The Washington Post.
Unlikely, if Bezos is ethical
Ha haha haha hahahahah ah aha hoe hhe hah hoe heh haha haha *gasp*.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And Fox News, right wing radio and a whole raft of conservative media vastly outnumber the few openly left wing media outlets.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!
For that matter, the right wing bias stays just about the same even if you include hard news media that strive for accuracy.
Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa! HARD NEWS media! Striving for accuracy! WOOOOOOOOOOOW!
Accuracy, of course, doesn't favour conservatives.
Tell us how you really feel. Actually, don't. Your spelling of "favour" means you don't count.
Here you go:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.wired.com/2013/08/...
We'll make great pets
Yup. They understood it when they were bitching about Rupert Murdoch for years and years. But now they're somehow blind to the obvious.
Were you asleep the last 8 years? 16 years? ... 300 years? The media bashes whomever's in charge. It's probably their job and certainly their income. Who bashes whom changes from time to time, but the idea's the same. Power has to be held to account.
Were YOU asleep the last 8 years? The media gave Obama an 8 year long tug job.
He got a fucking Nobel peace Prize for what? More shitty occupations in the Middle East? Expanding Gitmo? Expanding and abusing the powers "granted" by the Patriot Act to the point where he could murder a US citizen via a drone strike abroad?
How is attacking one of the largest American corporations 'making America great again'? SPOILER: IT ISN'T.
SPOILER: YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
Apple, MS, Google, Amazon, etc. are NOT good for the country.
They make tons of money, pay slave wages to foreigners, and then hide all the profits offshore so they never pay a dime in taxes.
How many fucking people could be given healthcare if those 4 companies paid taxes?
How many US citizens could be given jobs paying a livable wage if those 4 countries had to abide by the rules for H1B visas?
When everything is racist having a conversation about race and calling people racist is retarded and a waste of time.
(emphasis mine) What a perfectly fitting reply! How much longer before we have to open the fourth box of liberty?
Just so you are aware of optics, if you say "mainstream media" you look like an idiot. If you say "MSM" you look like a lunatic.
you probably don't realize it from your Breitbart/Reddit bubble, but the phrase sounds like: "I think eberybuddy is lyin to me, and I cain't trust what annyone who trusts anything but deluxe tinfoil for their hats!"
The irony of your post. It's astounding. Only one ignorant of history would think that the 4th box hasn't been opened... multiple times, recently and repeatedly throughout history in the US. Black American gun rights is a very rich history and a good example for why the 2nd is very important.
If BLM thinks that the other 3 boxes have been exhausted and that violence is justified, that is their right. Who are they going to direct that violence toward? Remember, everyone is armed and can defend themselves and their institutions if anyone chooses the 4th box, government inaction be damned. Do you think BLM and white guilt liberals think Evergreen ideas of racism are worth dying for?
It came from a well known and proud-to-admit-it-liar
res ipsa loquitor, if he said it, it is probably false.
So, representing his "Second amendment people" when he attacks Democrats for "encouraging violence" is honest.
Any "balance" is simply lying
"Silver spoon in his mouth"?
Unlike Drumpf, he did not inherit hundreds of millions, nor did he get "a small loan, only a million dollars or so" to get to Harvard.
yet another rethuglikkklan liar!
No, just don't be a racist.
How do I not be a racist if "everything is racist"?
Amazon *didn't* buy the WP. Jeff Bezos did, as an individual. Bezos owns 17% of Amazon, but institutional investors (i.e. Wall Street) own 63%. As usual, Trump gets the details wrong.
More like a crumple horned snorkack.
to cover it up. Anyway I'm praying that Trump is _not_ impeached. The last thing I want is predisent Pence. Right now Trump dampers the worst of his religious quackery...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Maybe. Alternatively - long shot, I know - the bosses could just trouser it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Can someone, PLEASE, take MR President's twitter account away from him? Shit's embarrasing, and I don't even live in the US.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
That, and "other people" aren't the president of the US. I would expect that the presidents' words will always continue to be heavily dissected and scrutinized, as they should be.
A few percent does not a black man make.
Looks like a news site covering news. Do you have evidence that Bezos influences what stories get written?
Well, if not for any other reason, the fact that it's still in business at all is an "influence", because without his purchase, it would have gone the way of the dodo.
And, of course, from the CEO down, people whose careers and income are on the line know what Bezos's expectations and politics actually are.
Trump needs serious psychological help.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
You do realize most of the people attacking Trump are even richer, right?
Do you a prefer a president who hides his wealth in secret shelters, or is up-front and transparent about how much money he makes?
The thing is the true "elite" are a very snobbish bunch, and you can't be one of them no matter how much money you have - which is why they despise trump.
People like you are just echoes of the real power who have managed to quite successfully brainwash you against a basically mediocre person. What a waste of energy! But it's your life to toss away on someone else's fantasy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Obama confronted Putin: "Hey Putin, whats up with all the hacking? Please stop doing that..." Pretty sure that's how it went. Obama never had any balls in the first place (remember his red line in Syria; you can bet Putin remembered), he wasn't about to grow balls with 6 months left in his 2nd term.
What retaliation was made? AFAIK there was none. Spyware is not retaliation, a Stuxnet variant that crashed critical Russian military or government systems would be retaliation. All I saw was Russia hacking the NSA and dumping all of the US cyberweapons online for everyone to see under Obamas watch...
"Remember, they asked Republican controlled congress to investigate but they refused."
Congress doesn't investigate exigent national security threats, that is what the president, the FBI and the NSA are for (all exist in the EXECUTIVE branch, not congress). Congress can pass a resolution condemning something, or hold hearings after the fact, but their job is to pass laws, funding, have internal oversight and declare war, not defend the nation. Sorry you fell for someones bullshit there.
You may not like the facts, but they still stand.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Payroll costs include benefits (~39.1%? I hear numbers ranging from 18% to 65%), OASDI (6.2%), Hospital Insurance (0.2%, 2% for higher incomes), and a few other things, plus wages. Barely more than half of the cost of employing a full-time worker is wages.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We handle that by having staff and committees. Politicians tend to become de-facto experts in certain areas of interest by forming committees, to which they attach themselves, to investigate issues. They have staff with knowledge beyond their own to help inform them and explain shit. This gets you diversity in local governments (city council) and in Congress.
The President is a diplomat, and has an enormous impact on what Congress can achieve. He needs to know what efforts to support and what to hinder, and how to speak to the nation about these things. That means he needs to be less of a policymaker and more of the guy who comforts us in times of crisis, tells us why it will be okay, and speaks loudly on important topics so that we pressure Congress to work for our interests. Most of that is economics, because the things that terrify our citizens range largely through high unemployment, financial instability, and poverty. Even war brings little more than the concern of the upheaval of your livelihood--hence why we generally see politicians comfort the nation about the threat of war by waging the war way the hell over there where we don't have to experience it, and why people freaked out about the prospect of a draft when GWBush was in office.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism.
A strong grasp of economics would help with that. If you don't understand the domain at all, how do you deal with people telling you things? Just nod and say, "... so what do I do?"
The United States is a Social Democracy. That means we operate within a capitalist framework, and intervene to promote social justice.
The Universal Social Security I designed fits with this framework: its ultimate, but ultimately tangential, goal is to provide people with no job and no income the means to survive through a mechanism of making them a profits source upon which the supply market can capitalize. They won't live well, and any employment (and attached wage) will greatly increase their standard-of-living, leading to the mechanism of economization: people economize--they seek to maximize their ends while minimizing the expenditure of means.
Rather than a welfare trap (getting a job means losing some of your income while expending labor for replacement income), Americans would have a more-direct causal relationship between expending means (labor) to gain ends (income, which is more means in this case, leading to a greater standard of living i.e. ends). The risk of losing your welfare and then being subsequently denied for new welfare is reduced, as the scope of welfare services replaced by the social security benefit no longer carries said risks.
Again: that reduces the total tax burden on every single American, on every business, entirely.
People with no grasp of economics shout "socialism!" at anything that looks like it involves government and money. You also have failures like the two large blights on the ACA: businesses are mandated only to supply healthcare to full-time employees, and people buy their health insurance with a subsidy on the exchange. That puts two huge breaks in the market, disrupting the effects of market capitalism in destructive ways.
A mandate that all employees must supply healthcare would reduce underemployment by discouraging part-time work; a mandate to supply it to only full-time employees encourages businesses to cut hours and hire more workers. The mandate in place cause a spread of poverty by spreading underemployment, the taproot of unemployment and of poverty itself.
Meanwhile, the exchange system creates breaks in the market. An employer wants to outcompete his competition, and so wants to minimize excess costs so as to avoid inflating his prices. Health insurance providers want to outcompete the competition, and so want to minimize their costs so that employers negotiate large group benefits accounts with them. Healthcare providers are pressured by health insurance providers to negotiate the slimmest margins they'll tolerate, because the insurer represents millions of customers bringing tiny bits of profit that all add up. A single-payer system can benchmark this and use the negotiated rates as a fair standard, piggybacking on the market effect to imitate a market interest which has to compete; whereas the exchange system with subsidies doesn't do this, and so exchange plans aren't put under that kind of pressure, and can get easy taxpayer money.
Single-payer with an absolute employer benefit mandate enforces all the benefits of market capitalism. What we have now starts to amplify the negative effects of socialism. Frequently, when I explain this to raving conservatives, they start to look at the ACA and consider if it could use a little tweaking instead of a solid repeal.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Wow so your evidence is that it's still in business and the CEO has "expectations"? Do you approve of NPR because it's funded by listeners?
NPR isn't "funded by listeners", it's majority funded by institutional and corporate sources; that's true even at the level of individual stations.
And I neither approve nor disapprove of NPR, but I certainly consider it strongly politically biased, towards the political preferences of both its donors and its listeners.
No, the evidence is the bias and inaccuracies in what the WaPo publishes, which happen to align with the interests of the owner.
So you're saying that if you can eliminate an expense (tax) for free (i.e. without it being a tradeoff that comes with a downside) then it's all upside. I don't think any person would argue against you on that.
Perhaps not; I was more trying to claim that policy is a form of technology, and policy that's more-efficient is high technology. If you dictate a welfare system that does exactly the same thing but costs less, that's technology. I imagine many people wouldn't like the stretch, although people who understand manufacturing (re: cellular manufacture, assembly lines) would probably think long and hard before opening their mouths to say anything in response because they're used to "technology" involving better processes instead of just better tools.
You solved one of the hardest government policy problems of the modern world? I'd think a polymath would want to expand on that, even if just for the bragging rights.
It wasn't a hard problem. You want to see hard, try working out the politics. I guess I can walk through it instead of just dumping "Do X and it works, trust me," but it's long and boring. Seriously, I don't have a spreadsheet; I have an enormous pile of spreadsheets.
So, let's talk about some current welfare problems.
SNAP and WIC don't always provide for everyone who needs assistance. These are, however, some of our most-successful programs, along with OASDI and Medicare/Medicaid.
TANF and unemployment are basically playing a juggling game. There are fewer jobs than jobseekers, and the time restrictions (6 months unemployment, 2 years TANF) essentially mean we provide the same amount of welfare regardless (in theory) so long as everyone way down at the bottom takes turns having a job. We aren't a Communist state, so we don't pick out the unemployed and dictate whose turn it is; if you're unlucky enough to be in the wrong locale, you might be unemployed for 2-3 years in a recession. It's pretty common to be unemployed for 8 months or so.
75% of qualified HUD housing assistance applicants go on a waiting list and never receive benefits. They become ineligible by some mechanism by the time HUD gets them on the benefits schedule. Some households are on HUD waiting lists as long as seven years with no aid, at all. HUD pays up to the lesser of 1/3 of your monthly rent or 1/3 of your monthly income, so it's worse the worse-off you are.
At the same time, our welfare system has one major success: abuse. Our welfare system shows a significant amount of inappropriate disbursal of benefits, and nearly 100% of that is in the bureaucracy. That is to say: our welfare programs are broken in such a way that many applicants clearly are poor and need aid, but somehow don't technically qualify... and then their caseworker nudges their application a tiny bit over into the "approved" pile. The biggest source of abuse is doctors claiming things in medicaid that the bureaucracy later reviews and suggests were probably not necessary--bean counters disagree with the doctors about necessary medical care. Outright fraud is almost non-existent, thanks to an aggressive and highly-effective office of inspector general.
So, bad at getting benefits out to the needy, good at keeping people from bullshitting their way to benefits.
Welfare models are notoriously ... discretionary. It's pretty easy to make a welfare model say anything you want by picking and choosing your cases. Some of the most-egregious claim that a single mother in Wisconsin can get $35,000/year in benefits. A deep examination of this assertion suggests maybe 200 Wisconsinites are actually getting that; that's not the issue.
Of that $35,000, around $15,000 are state-funded benefits. The analysis includes some $5,000 of Federal tax breaks. Education benefits (Pell Grants) is included. Medicaid actually wasn't included in that claim, last
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sure I know what it means. It means Trump is a crappy businessman, because a good one wouldn't have all those losses to roll over.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
social security 6.2%, medicare 1.4%, federal unemployment tax 6%, state unemployment tax variable (2.7% in my state)
I'm not aware of any others that are required but I'm not in payroll so if it's something they pay but doesn't appear on my check stub... My company for example matchs 401k investments up to a certain percentage of your income and $1,000 a year to an HPNA but these aren't required.
Does that really make sense to you? There are some very high risk / high reward businesses and real estate development is one of them. There are other businesses that are cyclical (and real estate is one of them).
Having a loss is part of business. (No disrespect intended but I can see that you have never been part of running a business or in making models or dashboards for people that do.)
If you're going to pay taxes on profit it only makes sense that you can carry the loss.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Right. I'm only concerned with moving OASDI (6.2%); Medicare (HI) is also social security, and I'm not going anywhere near state services. Keeping OASDI running requires a 5.3% payroll tax in the short term (this shrinks over time), so it's a 0.9% marginal discount in payroll taxes.
I guess the 0.2% HI is on your paycheck. Unemployment taxes aren't on the paycheck.
And uh. The model I use actually counts total income taxes collecting including OASDI (even the payroll part) and measures Federal welfare et al out of that. I move the OASDI payroll into the paycheck income tax, then cut out the part of income taxes that represent Federal welfare. Unemployment is included in the part I cut out.
That has the odd implication that the 6% Federal unemployment tax stays on payroll, but has to be marked as just ... payroll tax, to the general fund. I never computed it out, anyway, so it doesn't alter my model; in practice, the CBO will need to figure out how to adjust tax brackets and payroll taxes to create a more-level progressive tax instead of the ugly bump we have now (which my rough model inherits because of how it's crudely calculated--it's intended to be correct and deployable, but not necessarily the optimal form).
State unemployment can go away. That's not recommended as part of my model; the simple fact is it's no longer necessary or useful, and can go away. Since I don't touch state taxes at all, any state reaching that conclusion after careful analysis can simply repeal their unemployment tax.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Institutional and corporate sources make up more combined (not quite majority), but they only make up more when combined.
What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo? Have you compared them to other sources like Breitbart which have knowingly posted fake news stories (and aren't a fan of retractions)?
So, calling it "listener funded" is misleading. And its listener demographics is overwhelmingly intellectuals, with their massive biases and special interests.
I stopped reading them and I don't keep track. In addition to being often wrong, the WaPo was also just boring, a predictable echo chamber of the educated intellectual "moderate left" and their many delusions.
All news source publishes erroneous and fabricated materials, so you always need to fact check yourself. If you think you can trust the WaPo any more than Breitbart, you're a fool.
I tend to get my news from a variety of sources so it's not hard to check multiple sources. If you think the journalists at WaPo are anything like the people that collect the crap Breitbart puts out, then you're not very discerning in your news sources.
I don't think that at all! The difference between WaPo and Breitbart is like the difference between an expensive "escort" and a street hooker, or between Goebbels and some nutty guy on a street corner: the WaPo takes a lot of money for its prostitution, and its propaganda is carefully crafted to serve the interests of the state and to fool people like you. With Breitbart, it's pretty obvious to everybody what it is and isn't.
I am indeed not. I got rid of my "discerning tastes" years ago.
Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda. That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.
Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.
So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to think critically because I check all my media sources? Well, I think that tells us all we need to know about you, doesn't it?
I don't trust the WaPo more than sites like Breitbart, but you don't check your media sources, you think they're all bad and can't tell if one is better than the other. If you were checking all your media sources, I imagine you would have noticed a trend in quality by now.