Trump Administration Officially Delays 'Startup Visa' Rule (sfchronicle.com)

Trisha Thadani, reporting for SFChronicle: The Trump administration has officially delayed a rule that would allow some foreign entrepreneurs to stay in the U.S. and build their companies. During this delay, the administration will propose a plan to rescind the rule all together, according to a Federal Register notice that will be published Tuesday. This official notice, which will be published in the Federal Register Tuesday, comes exactly one week before the rule was slated to go into effect. It will be delayed until March 14. The International Entrepreneur Rule, is the closest the United States has come to the "startup visa" Silicon Valley has long sought, was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in January during President Barack Obama's waning hours in office.

Comments

promises

[turkeydance]

promises

Re:promises

[bobbied]

Yep, the current administration is rolling back the previous administration's actions one regulation after another..

Isn't that what the current president said he'd do? That's what I remember from the campaign...

Re: promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. The neo-libs thought they were going for get a burger flipper like Hillary. Thought wrong!

Re:promises

[thaylin]

Except this was not a regulation, this was a way to increase jobs in the US by encouraging investment.... This was actually around red tape.

Re:promises

[OhPlz]

Sounds to me like it clears the way for US workers to innovate.

Re:promises

[Freischutz]

Sounds to me like it clears the way for US workers to innovate.

Just out of curiosity, how was this 'Startup Visa' rule stopping US workers from innovating? Did each issue 'Startup Visa' issued cause the innovation centres in the brains of one hundred US workers to be deactivated by means of some evil liberal JuJu magic or something?

Re:promises

[interkin3tic]

I guess everyone hoped he was lying about "repeal everything" and would just stick to silly red meat issues his voters thought were evil. Like "common core" which inexplicably got labeled as satanic brainwashing rather than an easier way to learn addition. Not, you know, actually going after everything Obama did. The vast majority of what any government does is pretty mundane and non-controversial. How many voters in red states were rooting for keeping foreign entrepreneurs out? I'm sure if you told them it was a rule Obama put into place they'd voice an opposition to it, but no one was that I can tell. Why get rid of it? This is seeming more like religious opposition to the majority of Americans who happen to be not far-right.

Considering all the other things he's lied about, and considering how few people support him, I don't think it's at all a given he was going to waste time and the country's money on repealing all the minutia that Obama did.

Re:promises

[PopeRatzo]

Just out of curiosity, how was this 'Startup Visa' rule stopping US workers from innovating?

See, there's this reservoir of American innovation, and the levels are way down. Every time you allow a foreigner to come here an innovate, the reservoir is depleted because American innovators get discouraged and decide to go on disability or become homeless. Because American innovators are sensitive broflakes who are easily triggered by people with different shades of skin or funny accents. And venture capitalists will flock to the foreign startups like fraternity brothers flocking to the hot undergrads. So basically, American innovators will become the VC equivalent of fat chicks at a kegger. Eventually, they might get some venture capital, but only after all the VCs are shitfaced and unable to achieve anything like a tumescent venture capital state. I hope that answers your question.

Back in my day, we never had to deal with any of these pesky foreign innovators. No sir. Now, we name our electric car companies after them. We're going to hell, I tell you.

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

It is satanic brain-washing, and I want my child to have no part in it. Teaching a gifted student "the dumbass way" of doing addition is tantamount to
torture.

Re: promises

[Anonymous Coward]

The pendulum swings both ways. Don't forget: some things are not partisan; your shit stinks too.

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Promising stupid shit, then following up on stupid shit is still stupid shit.

Trump voters: Stupid shits, praising a stupid shit, inflicting their stupid shit on the world.

Stupid.

Shit.

Made real.

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

The Land of the Free Market doesn't like competition, especially not unfair competition from all those third-world countries with their huge advantages in education, public services, health care etc. How's a patriotic American supposed to innovate with their new start-up when a foreigner can waltz in with such a unfair, government-sponsored edge in Good Ideas?

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Capital is finite.

Re:promises

[interkin3tic]

You linked to an image search for "common core fails" rather than, non-meme-based evidence. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Re:promises

[LeftCoastThinker]

There is already a perfectly valid way to invest in the US, it is called the stock market.

What this did was provide a path for rich people to buy their way into the country, rather than stand in line like everyone else. Also, this EO would have seen hundreds of startups for the sole purpose of getting their rich owners into the US. It wasn't even clear to me how many if any employees they needed to sustain to be a valid business for the Visa.

Re:promises

[hey!]

I don't think people were paying enough attention to details to be hoping he was lying.

Take Trump's Obamacare repeal promises. He promised he'd have a plan where everyone would have insurance, regardless of their ability to pay. There would be no cuts to Medicaid. Nobody would lose coverage. Nobody would be worse off financially. Everybody would get much better care than they do now. The government would pay for health care for the uninsured, but save money overall while at the same time being less involved with health care than it is now. Above all the plan would be simple, so simple, and ready to go shortly after he took office.

Now persons of a critical frame of mind would look at these promises and conclude that these promises would be quite challenging to keep, given that US health care spending rose faster than inflation every single year from around 1960 to 2015, and that under a private health care system with the federal government only stepping in to take the least insurable people of all -- the elderly and the poor. Yet at the same time, any attempt to address this long-developing crisis necessarily is going to have to sound ambitious in its goals. The devil is in the details.

The thing is, I don't think the details ever entered into most peoples' minds. In an age where we have unprecedented access to information, there's so much of the stuff people have become hostile to the stuff, preferring to fall back on their gut: does this guy sound sincere? Does he speak with conviction?

Donald Trump speaks with more genuine conviction than any politician of our time, excepting perhaps Bernie Sanders. There is no doubting the genuineness of Sanders' hatred for the billionaire class, or Trump's conviction that immigrants are ruining the country. Yet the sincerity of those feelings have no bearings on the wisdom of the policies that come out of those feelings. In fact sincerity has no bearing on the truthfulness of the candidate. People lie all the time about things they care about strongly; in a way a more emotionally detached candidate would likely be more reliable.

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple.

A company sets up a startup which is uniformly biased in favor of workers from that same country (let's say, oh, randomly, India). That startup is essentially a "store front" for technology capacity in India. At a strategic point, the IP and projects will be systematically moved from the "point persons" (who are generally well-paid and give the impression of competence) to less-skilled, less-competent developers from said country. This drives down costs to the point where there is significantly decreased financial capability for American innovators to compete in that space, due to American cost of living.

Sound unreasonable? Have you worked for a "US based" consulting company with Indian board members? I have, and it works -precisely- that way.
 

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in short, you have no clue about technology or technology industry, and your contribution to Slashdot is endlessly blathering on in different forms of poseur uselessness.

Should have realized sooner with the mountains of evidence you daily provide.

Re:promises

[PopeRatzo]

So, in short, you have no clue about technology or technology industry, and your contribution to Slashdot is endlessly blathering on in different forms of poseur uselessness.

^triggered af^

Re:promises

[Freischutz]

Back in my day, we never had to deal with any of these pesky foreign innovators. No sir. Now, we name our electric car companies after them. We're going to hell, I tell you.

Hmmm... In that case, perhaps I can interest you in some imported hand baskets?

Re:promises

[Hognoxious]

Like "common core" which inexplicably got labeled as satanic brainwashing rather than an easier way to learn addition.

Common core isn't a way to learn anything. It's about ability standards, not teaching methods.

Re:promises

[mattack2]

Donald Trump speaks with more genuine conviction than any politician of our time

Then why does he flip flop so often?

Re:promises

[OhPlz]

It's another opportunity to undercut domestic labor. We've seen abuses of the H1B visa program, there's no reason this one won't be abused as well.

Re:promises

[bobbied]

Donald Trump speaks with more genuine conviction than any politician of our time

Then why does he flip flop so often?

Reality hits most of us eventually..

However, in this case I think Trump's issue is that he is not skilled in political speaking, the close parsing of focus grouped statements which don't actually mean ANYTHING specific if you look a them, but sure sound like they do to the pre-disposed listeners. Trump just says stuff that most political candidates wouldn't touch with a 10' pole because they are fraught with political mine fields. You need to understand that Trump WANTS a lot of this stuff he is heard to "promise" but he's not really making the policy statements you would like to think he's making. He's making grand statements which he knows are not truly possible to fulfill in full, but represent the direction he wants to head, and PC parsing words be damned.

It's actually part of his charm to his voters.... The ability to dispense of the PC double speak and make clear statements. Of course this hands his detractors some nice ammo.... Which is why I think Trump has been a bit more careful of late... Oh, not that he's stepping away from the controversy, no he stirs that on purpose, but stepping back from making promises which he cannot possibly keep...

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing this takes [satire] tags, but these days it's damn impossible to be sure w/o knowing the authors political affiliation.

Re:promises

[mattack2]

But how can you call it conviction that he keeps flip flopping (sometimes in the same speech), and definitely many times currently vs tweets he's made just a few years ago? Changing his opinion once in a while based on new evidence, great.. That's not at all what he does though.

That seems like the opposite of conviction to me.

I would call what the Tea Party politicians do as having more conviction, since they're unwilling to compromise at all (though that also causes great problems).

Re:promises

[PopeRatzo]

Hmmm... In that case, perhaps I can interest you in some imported hand baskets?

No sirree. I only buy American-made goods like iPhones and Trump neckties.

Re:promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, how was this 'Startup Visa' rule stopping US workers from innovating?

They Took Ur Jobs !

Re:promises

[bobbied]

You are obviously not hearing me... Trump isn't flip flopping from his perspective, what's happening is he is speaking in unpolished terms that YOU hear in ways that look like flip flops to you. Remember this guys is NOT skilled in political speaking or PR polished, focus group tested phrases... Especially on the campaign trail and when he's speaking impromptu.

For instance, his stated goal of everybody having health insurance means something different to him than you. He is discussing his *goal* not the means to the goal. He's not saying "universal government provided coverage" but everybody being able to afford coverage... He's not discussing the means to get there, only the goal. You choose to interpret his words as him endorsing a specific means to that goal so you see a flip flop when he doesn't sign up to the means you assumed.

Re: promises

[bobbied]

True, but the pendulum sure went a long way away from the democrats given Trump elected president over Hillary... The really sad thing is that it's been swinging this way now for nearly 8 years now and seems to be gaining speed to me.

The question is, how far will it go before it swings back? I'm afraid a lot more... How inconsequential will the democrats be by then? The answer depends on what happens legislatively over the next year or so and if Trump's efforts actually help the economy or not. The first issue is an open question still, but the economy seems to be swinging Trump's way at this point.

Re:promises

[hey!]

Because the conviction is emotional, not intellectual.

The tone is consistent, not the propositions delivered by that tone.

Re: promises

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he could flip flop with conviction. You know, I'm convicted of this. Now I'm convicted of that. By the time I leave office I will be the most convicted president. Make America great again with more convictions.

Re: promises

[leslie.satenstein]

It's a personal be vendetta against anything Obama. Trump wants to erase every trace of any action that Obama introduced. It matters not to him if the act was good or bad. It started with the birth certificate. We will have to wait for Trump to be out of office before it becomes a tit-for-tat.

Re: promises

[bobbied]

If you think so, I guess it's true to you... By the way... Do you know who FIRST brought up the Obama Birth certificate thing and when this was done? You know right?

Trump? WRONG!

It was Hillary Clinton's Campaign when she was in a primary fight with Obama for the democratic nomination who FIRST tried to use this... Oh but she's backed away from that so you don't care any more.... Well, Trump has ALSO backed away from this birther thing too. So why are you insisting on bashing Trump with this but don't care that Clinton used it too? Perhaps you are just partisan, or worse, just hate Trump for some reason? Either way, you are a hypocrite unless you hold Clinton to the same standard.

So much for jobs

[thaylin]

hey start your business in the US, and keep it, you are just not allowed to be here to manage it!

Re:So much for jobs

[alex67500]

I thought that was the EB-5 Visa, but apparently it's something else. I'm not sure I understand then...

Re:So much for jobs

[thaylin]

That requires at least a 1m investment of your own money into any business, not just your own.

The new one stated that the buisness that you have a substantial role in managing and own at least 10% of, must have started in last 5 years, have growth potential and have received investment from US lenders of at least 250k or 100k from federal grants.

Re:So much for jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty clear that taking executive officers' jerbs made this a high priority.

Re: So much for jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah start yet another coffee front family importation and surrogate pregnancy attack agency to fuel the un-needed H1B eviction craze and devastate the local community and affordable housing within it.

English, msmash

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you speak it?
If so, did you reread this submission?
If so - see first question.

Re:English, msmash

[GrumpySteen]

The summary is quoting the first three paragraphs of the linked article. Anything you see wrong in it is the fault of the author of the article, not the /. editor who posted the quote as-is (which is the proper way to quote something).

Re:English, msmash

[unixisc]

The headline seems to suggest that the introduction of that visa is being delayed. Reading the very next sentence, it states that following the suspension of that rule, it will be rescinded i.e. revoked altogether. In other words, the headline suggests that startup companies will get that visa, but somewhat later. Which is quite contrary to the article, which states that the visa, which they were getting until now, will be revoked and they'll have to make other arrangements

Re:English, msmash

[Rockoon]

Thats how fake news works. For instance, "Cuts in Medicare"

Re:English, msmash

[GrumpySteen]

Exactly none of that changes the fact that the summary and title are taken directly from the linked article. mssmash did not write any of it. Any fault in the article lies with the author of the article, not the /. editor who quoted it.

Re:English, msmash

[unixisc]

Shouldn't the person who posts it read what it says, and make his/her summary the headline?

Re:English, msmash

[GrumpySteen]

What part of the title do you feel is inaccurate?

The rule, which would have gone into effect on the 17th, is delayed until March. During the delay, the Trump administration is expected to propose rescinding it, but they haven't submitted that proposal yet. The title, which is the title of the linked article, summarizes the situation properly. Why would they change it?

The part of the article that mentions people losing visas is inaccurate because nobody has gotten a visa under a rule that isn't in effect, but that part of the article wasn't included in the summary or the title, so you can't really blame the /. editor for that.

Excuses

[BradleyUffner]

What excuse are they pretending they have for doing this?

Re:Excuses

[randomErr]

The ones that come to mind are:

• Encourage citizenship
• Keep money in the US
• Stop the loophole that prevents the US from taxing foreign nationals

Re:Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a foreign national ( Canadian living in Canada ) and the U.S. Government taxes me all the time. Income in US from US corporation dividends are subject to withholding by US.

Re: Excuses

[Huge_UID]

You'd probably lose your left nut if you relied on our failed health system.

Re: Excuses

[ganjadude]

living in NYS (not NYC) i pay well over 55% of my income on taxes not including sales tax

if thats "so little" i would really hate to be where you are

Re: Excuses

[BradleyUffner]

I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but I don't believe you.

Even if you make $10,000,000 / year, your federal taxes will be 36.91%, FICA is 2.41%, and NY State will be 8.59%, for a grand total of 47.91%. Rates are significantly less for more realistic incomes.

Re: Excuses

[Grishnakh]

You're forgetting property taxes, which can be huge in many areas (esp. the northeast US states)).

Also, there's sales tax and gas taxes, plus things like car taxes/car registration fees.

Finally, I thought FICA taxes maxed out somewhere a little over 100k of income, so instead of looking at $10M/year income, look at $110k perhaps: there, you get the full brunt of FICA taxes, plus sales and gas taxes will be a far more significant portion of your income.

Also, if someone is self-employed, they have additional self-employment taxes.

Re: Excuses

[ganjadude]

you left out local taxes, school taxes, MTA taxes (to pay for the NYC trains that i dont even use)

i was including ALL taxes minus sales

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really not that much.

To pay that much on taxes(total, spread out across federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.) you STILL couldn't spend that much on taxes unless you made like 250k a year or had like 1 million in assets or something.

Oh big pity, the millionaire has to give up 125k a year...

Re: Excuses

[ganjadude]

i make no wheres near a million bucks lol

Re: Excuses

[Rockoon]

The enlightened left never wants to admit that your tax burden is already as high or higher than those enlightened Europeans. They always want to cherry pick what taxes are counted here (not all), vs there (all).

Don't worry though, the Union over there is going to have its federalization moment as well. What will they be saying when the Union is also spending as much as all their "Countries" combined.

Re: Excuses

[AuMatar]

If you wanted to not pay the MTA taxes and not get any tax money from NYC for any service you use (including roads, schools, police, fire, etc), I'm sure the city residents would be happy to approve it. NYC pays far more in taxes than it gets in.

But until you're willing to do that, you get to shut the fuck up about the MTA taxes.

Re: Excuses

[GLMDesigns]

How about we do that on a Federal Level as well.

Limit the Federal budget to military, courts, enforcement agencies and little else.

Let the states pay for roads, HUD, welfare etc...

(Social Security is YOUR money which is beneficently invested for you by the all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring Federal government.)

Re: Excuses

[BlueStrat]

Also, if someone is self-employed, they have additional self-employment taxes.

Yes, because God knows, we certainly don't need people encouraged to work for themselves! Then the government wouldn't be able to take what it wants from your paycheck before you get it and know to the penny how much money you have! Oh, the horror!

Strat

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, if they're self employed they're paying a different income tax, you'd have to subtract the 36.91% above, and probably replace it with 25% or something.

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because the left prefers facts, and the facts don't add up to anything close to European taxes. It is just pure horseshit that you knew is horseshit but you spewed it anyways because that is the preferred flavor of the right these days.

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we do that on a Federal Level as well.

You do realize your suggestions have nothing to do with the idea that if you did not receive the benefits of the state, then not paying taxes might be legitimate, right?

Limit the Federal budget to military, courts, enforcement agencies and little else.

Let the states pay for roads, HUD, welfare etc...

Oh sorry, but the Feds are obligated to provide post roads, not to mention docks, locks, dams and more, and it is duty bound to provide for Indian Welfare due to the treaties it has signed and ratified, and banks are regulated under a federal umbrella, as is the environment and telecommunications, again, the US has ratified treaties, you can't just undeclared them.

I know you may want to live in the 18th Century, but you can't.

(Social Security is YOUR money which is beneficently invested for you by the all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring Federal government.)

No, it is secured, not invested. That's the point.

If you want a sovereign wealth fund, try Alaska, or North Dakota.

Re: Excuses

[AuMatar]

Because I *like* clean air, clean water, regulated food and drug supplies, the elderly not dying because they can't afford their medications, the schools in poor states getting enough money to run, help for those who've lost their jobs, ensuring children don't starve, etc. The states are unable to do those jobs, and leaving it to 50 different governments to do them would leave many states doing them far more poorly.

In other words, I'm *NOT* a sociopath like you are. And you can still shut the fuck up about the MTA taxes.

Re: Excuses

[mattack2]

(Social Security is YOUR money which is beneficently invested for you by the all-knowing, all-loving, all-caring Federal government.)

Not exactly.. It's my money which is being taken by the government to give out to current retirees. Like a big Ponzi scheme.

(Now, I could possibly be convinced that a 'mandatory 401k', at the same rate as Social Security taxes, but kept entirely in each person's account, would be reasonable.. since apparently many people are not smart enough to do a 401k on their own.)

Re:Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

It am de way ob dey kind. It how dey be.

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Use your own money subsidising the weak and incompetent if you want, but keep your hands off mine.
--
roman_mir

Re: Excuses

[AuMatar]

Aw, the little libertarian is sad because he can't mooch off society without his fair share. Tell you what- pay back ever cent you've ever used from society, including a complete amnesia of everything taught in government school, give away anything that was made by a person or company that received any government benefits or services ever and move to somewhere where you'll never do either of those things again, and we'll stop taxing you. Until then, grow up and handle your responsibilities to society like a fucking adult, not an 8 year old crying because he has to do his chores.

Re: Excuses

[Grishnakh]

They do that because, for W-2 employees, your employer is paying part of those taxes for you (specifically, half of your FICA taxes, plus payroll taxes too). When you're self-employed, you don't have an employer chipping that stuff in, so you have to pay it yourself.

If you don't like it, you should lobby the government to take the entire FICA deduction out of your paycheck.

Re: Excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Use your own money subsidising the weak and incompetent if you want, but keep your hands off mine.

As soon as you keep your hands from shoveling shit into my doing, you can keep your money.

Oh wait, you are using your hands for that purpose, and show no desire to stop?

Hand over the money. I won the lawsuit, you owe me for harm and injuries incurred as a result of your liable torts.

--
roman_mir

Re: Excuses

[BlueStrat]

They do that because, for W-2 employees, your employer is paying part of those taxes for you (specifically, half of your FICA taxes, plus payroll taxes too). When you're self-employed, you don't have an employer chipping that stuff in, so you have to pay it yourself.

If you don't like it, you should lobby the government to take the entire FICA deduction out of your paycheck.

How about instead we move to a flat tax and private individual retirement/disability savings accounts and do away with the IRS and the Social Security Agency? I like that idea better.

Strat

Re: Excuses

[GLMDesigns]

:)

True that. Well said.

Re: Excuses

[Grishnakh]

Because flat tax is stupid: you either won't be able to finance the government because you're not getting enough money, or you'll tax low-income people to death and they'll revolt.

You sound like you'd be happier living in Somalia. Why don't you go there and see how your idiotic libertarian ideas work out?

Re: Excuses

[BlueStrat]

Because flat tax is stupid: you either won't be able to finance the government because you're not getting enough money, or you'll tax low-income people to death and they'll revolt.

You sound like you'd be happier living in Somalia. Why don't you go there and see how your idiotic libertarian ideas work out?

There are a number of well thought-out flat tax proposals out there. Sorry, but the government needs a spending haircut. I think we'll survive if the feds aren't paying for studies that put shrimp on treadmills or spending untold amounts getting mud-puddles declared as endangered wetlands.

Why don't you go live in China or DPRK? They'll love your collectivist ideas there. Stop trying to turn the rest of the world into a socialist/communist shithole.

Strat

"Entrepreneur"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Are we mainly talking about:

1) one-man "entrepreneurs" who own almost nothing and effectively function like independent contractors (e.g., H1B's; maybe like the guy in the article's picture) or

2) real "entrepreneurs" who are hoping to build a business that employs multiple people or makes a tangible product you can buy, and have proven $$$ that they plan to invest in their idea?

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you had to raise $250,000 from investors to qualify. So it would be option #2.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

$250,000 will pay for an awful lot of H1Bs.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before someone made a little "company" that would "invest" on behalf of of many of these guys, all a ruse to get minimum wage IT workers?

Re:"Entrepreneur"

[thaylin]

You had to own atleast 10% of the company and have a managing role.

Have either 250k investment from US investors, or 100k in federal grants.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[MightyYar]

Does that allow you to even hire a single engineer (with overhead) in the valley?

Re:"Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

So I invest $250k for a 90% share of your LLC. You come to the US and start your "business" where you work for minimum wage and I am your sole client with a 5-year locked-in contract. Versus paying the prevailing wage of $100k+ per year that could save me a lot of money.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[GrumpySteen]

Not all federal legislation is intended to benefit silicon valley and startups do exist in other places.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[bigpat]

I believe you had to raise $250,000 from investors to qualify. So it would be option #2.

That seems like quite a low threshold and meant for creating a loophole....

Make the threshold $10 million, have effective government oversight to check and see that these are real start-ups intended on providing products and/or services (and not just to a related company or person) and then let's talk about whether it is a good thing to have wealthy foreigners come here to employ Americans.

Either way we should really focus on a reasonable number of green cards and new citizenships for people that want to come here and become American citizens.

Re:"Entrepreneur"

[thaylin]

Are you one of the "qualifying" investors?

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[MightyYar]

My point stands in Missouri, where this "entrepreneur" can hire a single engineer and maybe one liberal arts degree. Maybe.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[vux984]

Real investors? Or can you or your wife simply invest in your business with 250k line-of-credit against the house?

If not, what if we run it through a holding company so that it looks more arms length? "See, I have memorandum of understanding from MyOfficeChair Startup Venture Capital Ltd, and they've wired the money to the account; see here... and here...

Seriously... the idea that you need 250k lined up from investors sounds good on paper to people who think that's a lot of money. But for a lot of people, that's really not much money at all; and if they just need to 'front it' for the duration of the application process a LOT of people could come up with it for a couple months.

I know I could.

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[ghoul]

Given that a contractor in the bay area cost 100 dollars per hour so around 200K a year , 250K will pay for exactly one H1B

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all engineers have a "liberal arts degree." You should learn what that term means, or else just don't use it and say something more specific.

It means that in addition to engineering, they also completed other requirements, such as reading.

The only people in the US who get a science degree that isn't a "liberal arts degree" are people who went to a trade school, and those degrees aren't worth as much. A degree from a "real university" (aka a liberal arts college) is what most engineers get.

Maybe you meant, "art degree" and wanted to use an extra word you heard on talk radio?

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If you have a house in China worth 250k, you're probably not even applying for this because you're well-connected and can get the regular visa.

2) If you have enough collateral to get an American loan for $250k, and you're willing to co-mingle that money with other "investors," then it might very well qualify. But that is not a realistic situation. And if they actually come here on a regular business visa, buy a $250k house, and start a company with 5 other people and transfer that house to the company in order to secure a loan, why would it not count? Why would the source of collateral even make a difference to you?

Re: "Entrepreneur"

[MightyYar]

Um, I went to engineering school and got a B.S., not a B.A.

In any event, you know what I meant and I'm not really interested in debating semantics.

Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives are generally interested in reducing regulations for the benefit of businesses. It's a shame that xenophobia is getting in the way of something that will grow businesses and create jobs. This isn't going to take away jobs but instead create them and put Americans to work. This isn't H-1B bullshit. There really isn't a downside to keeping skilled labor in the United States that's going to create jobs for Americans. But the xenophobes that make up nearly 50% of the United States are stupid enough to turn away job creation. Sad!

Re:Idiocy

[ctilsie242]

This is how countries stop being world leaders. When businesses and scientists leave for greener pastures, you know things are hosed. I'd assert that the startup visa rule will do worse for the US economy than the past decisions to give businesses breaks by letting China have the manufacturing jobs.

Re:Idiocy

[lazarus]

Canada's Startup Visa Program

You're totally right. While the rest of the world is trying to attract the world's top talent, the US is actively hostile towards it. Trump seems to have missed the memo where these people generate wealth and jobs.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

They believe Trump is bringing back their manufacturing jobs, so F everyone else.

Now, of course, when Trump says "manufacturing jobs" he means something very different than the image most Americans conjure up. Americans think "manufacturing jobs" and think of factories where unskilled laborers can earn middle class incomes.

That ship has sailed, ladies and gentlemen. The days of earning that kind of money working in that kind of setting are NEVER coming back. Every politician, Trump included, knows this, they just won't ever spell it out for you. If you misinterpret what they are saying, well that's your own fault. Jobs will come back, but not the kind of jobs you'll care about.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people were going to use this program anyhow? It sounds nice on paper, but if few or no people actually use it, its not worth keeping the program. Why are other existing investment paths not good enough?

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has a complex about saying 'no' to average or below average prospects in order to not show prejudice.
Therefore, talented applicants will be offset by hordes of needy.

Besides, there have been plenty of people all through history and from all over the world that have been top talent, and they were appreciated- even by the US. But does the US suddenly not have talent? Does that one super talented applicant guarantee a continuous family of geniuses and endless contributions to the host country- once this single person is accepted & invested into?

The US attracts talent but because of its very accepting standards, (especially birth=citizen), the US attracts more mediocracy that talent. And many families come to do that on purpose!!

Years ago when I applied for a job/visa in Australia their response was basically "We have people that can do that. So what else is very unique that you can offer instead?". Oddly enough I can play the didgeridoo, (a rare talent where I'm from), but quite common there and did nothing to further my cause.
Nevertheless their response is respectable- it did not demean me or make me want to sue for equal rights, etc. A protectionist immigration policy SHOULD NOT BE FAULTED. A country is allowed to set firm filters and be allowed to say: "We can do this and/or train for this. And it is not prejudiced, nationalistic, or xenophobic to do so".

_

Re:Idiocy

[Grishnakh]

Trump seems to have missed the memo where these people generate wealth and jobs.

Trump is simply doing what he promised he'd do, and he's doing what his voters wanted him to do. His voters don't want these people here, even though his voters also complain a lot about how bad the job situation is for them. Make of that what you will.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

That ship has sailed, ladies and gentlemen. The days of earning that kind of money working in that kind of setting are NEVER coming back.

Oh, I don't know. A federal right-to-work law might do it. But with unions they'll certainly never come back.

Re:Idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, all he really promised was to build a wall, make America "great" again, and lock her up. He's 0 for 3, but that may not be a totally bad thing.

Re:Idiocy

[Pascoea]

"Right to work" may bring back manufacturing jobs, but they will all be at 7.50/hour with no benefits.

Re:Idiocy

[Plus1Entropy]

Automation, not China or unions, is the reason those jobs are never coming back.

Like horses at the turn of the 20th Century, human labor is becoming obsolete.

Apply for citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

And roll the dice. But let's stop playing games with privileged corporate visas that don't benefit ordinary Americans, it just benefits large corporations. Taxpayers like us are paying the bills, corporations have lawyers and accountants who help them avoid taxes and regulations that small businesses can't.

Re:Apply for citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean it doesn't benefit Americans? We want rich foreigners to come here under start up visas

Maybe if they were actually starting up companies... and not just using yet another fake visa to bring in their foreign staff to displace American workers in the economy.

Like I said above... $250,000 is a very very low threshold to have to show as an initial investment. Over how many years do you have to spend that? 5 years? Maybe $35k to $40k plus overhead... So, basically we are talking about one low wage worker for 5 years? Seems like a scam.

Re:Apply for citizenship

[thaylin]

you should look into the visa, that is not how it worked. The investment had to come from a US source qualified, you had to own 10%, and be a managing parterner, and it had to have been started within the last 5 years.

Re:Apply for citizenship

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sentiment is reasonable, but it's off-topic. We're talking about a specific visa for foreigners to bring their money INTO the USA and use it to give jobs to American citizens. You're thinking of H-1B visa - something completely different.

That said, the "Startup Visa", despite its apparent purpose, actually looks like a worse for the applicant than they'd have without it, so getting rid of it might actually encourage more foreigners to immigrate into the US (specifically, the ones with money and looking to employ people, so that might work out well for everyone. Let's wait and see).

In other words...

[Trailer Trash]

was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in January during President Barack Obama's waning hours in office

In other words, it's another one of these policies that is so utterly important to our country that Barack Obama waited until he was 7.95 years through his 8 year term to enact it, and then post-dated it to go into effect during Trump's presidency. Obviously it wasn't a big deal for Obama.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that so many right wingers are more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing. If it's a good idea, sure, it would have been great to do it sooner. However, let's not discard a good plan just because it happened at the end of Obama's presidency.

Re: In other words...

[HornWumpus]

SOP. Leaving a few legislative bombs is just what lame ducks do.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You noticed that?

Noticing things is racist!

Re: In other words...

[Topwiz]

In some cases it is merely a way for rich foreigners to purchase permanent residency, the so called 'green card' which are actually pink nowadays. There was a recent case in Vermont of an EB-5 scam. The now former Governor and current US Senator Leahy met with the 'investor' but whether they knew it was a scam before it came out in the press is unknown.

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

I swear conservatives are stupider than fucking rocks.

At one point in my life, I was trying to decide which party to join. I would think something like, "you know, I like the conservative philosophy: do things that create jobs." Then I would start listening to actual Republicans, and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That guy literally said all he wants is tax cuts for the rich." Then I would switch to the Democrat party.

Soon I would start listening to actual Democratic politicians and think, "they're dumb as bricks. That politician actually said we can all have free X without paying for it." Then I would switch back to Republicans.

After I switched back and forth enough times, I gave up and became independent. I fully disrespect both parties, although I've come to realize they do an adequate job representing their voters.

Re: In other words...

[thaylin]

This one not so much. It required actual investment from other parties (in the US) not from the person itself, meaning that you could not buy your way, and they had to be qualifying investments, not just give your buddy money from him to invest.

Re: In other words...

[HornWumpus]

One family member with $250k in the USA and they bootstrap the whole family in to buy a convenience store.

Even worse. $100k in government handouts? Fuck that. No government handout, business starting grants to non-citizens. That's the kind of bullshit that got us Solyndra. Bad ideas being given piles of cash by the bribed and clueless.

Re: In other words...

[Tablizer]

Obama waited until he was 7.95 years through his 8 year term to enact it...

It's perhaps a strategy to sneak it past a Congress intent on obstructing him, as it doesn't give them time to react, such as create a specific law against it. If the future new Congress and/or Executive is favorable to it, then it has a reasonable stance of staying. He probably thought or hoped H would win.

Re: In other words...

[Archangel Michael]

To be honest, the "dumb" is largely the result of the general population's ignorance (i.e. "dumb") of key issues.

As you say, both parties are "dumb". Hell, I've said the same thing about the Libertarian Party being "dumb" (it is too much of the time).

What you see as "dumb" is the result of single issue voters, who seem to only care about that "one thing" they think matters most in the world. And most of the time, it boils down to "I hate ________ (fill in with D or R or whatever) because they don't care about #mysingleissue"

It causes the cognitive dissonance where people ignore huge character flaws to get what they want in candidates (see Hillary and Donald for example), while only seeing character flaws in their opponents (see Donald and Hillary for example). This is why negative campaigns tend to work better than positive ones.

Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.

Re: In other words...

[Tablizer]

the so called 'green card' which are actually pink nowadays...

Now they get two pink slips: one on the way in, and another when T boots 'em out.

Re: In other words...

[thaylin]

how does that one person get on the qualified investor list?

Re: In other words...

[HornWumpus]

Give the maximum to both parties presidential campaign?

Perhaps parking a little money in the candidate's son in law's money losing hedge fund, not that we've seen anything like that lately. Did you notice how fast that hedge fund dried up after the bitch lost?

Surely you don't expect this rule to not be gamed?

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'd agree with this if you'd replaced "right wingers" with people as I see this from both sides of the isle continually.

Re: In other words...

[thaylin]

That works already, why would they need need a rule for it?

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

aisle

Re: In other words...

[TheWingThing]

Have you actually seen a current green card or are you just repeating what you read? Green cards are indeed green and this is what they look like since 2010. I'm not sure if I should take the erst of your post seriously either.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that so many right wingers are more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing.

The right is doing the right thing. The left should do whatever is left.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

In some cases it is merely a way for rich foreigners to purchase permanent residency, the so called 'green card' which are actually pink nowadays. There was a recent case in Vermont of an EB-5 scam. The now former Governor and current US Senator Leahy met with the 'investor' but whether they knew it was a scam before it came out in the press is unknown.

Startup visa is not green card.

Green cards are green, not pink.

Re: In other words...

[computational super]

both sides of the isle

You mean "aisle". "Isle" refers to an island. "Aisle" is the walkway separating two sets of seats, such as those that the members of the house of representatives sit in when the legislature is in session.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the right thing involves bankrupting our country because you feel guilty about shitholes being shitholes while your country isn't...

Yeah fuck you. You CAN leave.

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

Lately I have a modicum of respect for single-issue voters: at least they know what they want and are a force in actually achieving it.

Most voters seem to be zero-issue voters: they see the election as kind of a team sport, and want to be on the winning side. They will happily change their opinions on various issues (sometimes with a twisted justification, sometimes not) to help support their team. Others will happily switch between sides, enjoying the feeling that both teams are trying to win their vote. It's not about the issues.

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

Oh, I want to add:

Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.

I support this.

Re: In other words...

[Grishnakh]

To be fair, it's possible he just missed typing the 'a' key hard enough (on today's shitty, mushy keyboards with no tactile feedback) and didn't notice before hitting "submit", and this stupid site won't allow quick edits after submission like some other sites do. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt, unlike all the morons who write about using the "breaks" in their cars to slow down, or the idiots who can't get "there" and "their" (or worse, "they're") straight, or the fools who think "rediculous" is a word.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that so many [insert any political alignment here] are more interested in playing politics...

FTFY

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have some dumb people in charge.

"Rep. Hank Johnson, Guam will Tip over and capsize because of Marine Corps
Its no April Fools Day joke: the 55-year-old congressman and member of the House Democratic leadership told a naval officer who was testifying on March 25 that: My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7m6aewquco

RONTHFL

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps parking a little money in the candidate's son in law's money losing hedge fund, not that we've seen anything like that lately.

Hey now, the Loughner Real Estate Trust is an entirely legitimate business that was merely seeking Chinese investors as a routine practice, not that they implied they had the support of the Oval Office, nor pointed out how close to the President the wife was, he didn't even have her stand in for him in an official capacity until this weekend.

And look, they can now open a shop in the White House lobby to hawk her cheap costume jewelry now that that pesky ethics guy is gone, so it's a win-win!

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.

That's a useless change as people are quite capable of identifying party without having to look at what's on the ballot papers, and one that would take far more effort than it is worth, since you'd have to fight uphill anyway.

Instead, you should work to ensure that people actually have a representative government, which the current WTA-FPTP system does not do, even ignoring the rampant mal-apportionment and gerrymandering. A difficult fight, to be sure, but a far more lasting and substantial reform.

Re: In other words...

[LeftCoastThinker]

The rich get most of the tax cuts these days because the bottom 45% of workers DONT PAY ANY TAXES (and no, SS is not a tax per se, it is a benefit that you are paying into, since you will get Social Security when you hit 68 or 70).

Sorry, you were right about the Democrats, they want to tax everything while creating class warfare in order to buy the votes of every entitlement taking person in the country. They do not give a shit that welfare ruins people's lives and destroys their sense of worth, they want those votes.

OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality. They know that if you tax the rich too much, the rich will move physically or their business incorporation HQ to a more favorable tax haven. Is it better to tax the rich at 25% and actually get 25%, or tax the rich at 90% and have them move all their business beyond your taxing borders (usually taking jobs with them). The reality is that it is better for everyone if taxes are consistent percentages with no exemptions at all (or standard exemptions based on family size). Everyone should pay something though.

All the Trump bashing has created a negative straw man of the president, but when we are two years into his term and the economy is growing at 6% and jobs are through the roof, the Russia farce is played out for what it was, and all the asshats in the media have trust numbers lower than dirt, it will be interesting to see how the public views Trump. He is clearly not a politician, but so far, his actual actions have been pretty populist (rather than pro business).

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if they are in the executive branch.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rich get most of the tax cuts these days because the bottom 45% of workers DONT PAY ANY TAXES (and no, SS is not a tax per se, it is a benefit that you are paying into, since you will get Social Security when you hit 68 or 70).

So says the partisan stalwart!

Oh sorry, we debunked your little false story back in 2012, don't byou remember Mitt?

Turns out sales taxes, property taxes, and various other fees and charges are real, and they are paid for.

Sorry, you were right about the Democrats, they want to tax everything while creating class warfare in order to buy the votes of every entitlement taking person in the country.

So says the partisan stalwart.

Meanwhile, Democrats actually don't tax everything, and actually try to do things that benefit the country even if it costs them votes.

They do not give a shit that welfare ruins people's lives and destroys their sense of worth, they want those votes.

So says the partisan stalwart!

Food in your belly, a warm home, and education, ruining lives for millennia!

You're much better off if you are starving, freezing, and uneducated, because you know you didn't take a handout.

OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality.

Is that why they started two land wars in Asia? Is that why they let the banks run rampant? Is that why they let the national debt skyrocket with their madcap spending?

They know that if you tax the rich too much, the rich will move physically or their business incorporation HQ to a more favorable tax haven. Is it better to tax the rich at 25% and actually get 25%, or tax the rich at 90% and have them move all their business beyond your taxing borders (usually taking jobs with them).

Is that why Republicans encourage companies to play financial shenanigans, and then oppose any investigation or oversight, then blame the next president for trying to fix the problem?

The reality is that it is better for everyone if taxes are consistent percentages with no exemptions at all (or standard exemptions based on family size). Everyone should pay something though.

Yes, yes, you pursue the foolish equality of the flat tax.

All the Trump bashing has created a negative straw man of the president, but when we are two years into his term and the economy is growing at 6% and jobs are through the roof, the Russia farce is played out for what it was, and all the asshats in the media have trust numbers lower than dirt, it will be interesting to see how the public views Trump. He is clearly not a politician, but so far, his actual actions have been pretty populist (rather than pro business).

No, Trump is acting populist, but his actions are pro-business with a side of bullying showboating. If he makes it two years in his term, doubtful as it is, he'll likely be touting his accomplishments like the Emperor paraded around in his new clothes. And while his fawning devotees will praise the increase of the chocolate ration, others will not praise the orange turd.

He might even be looking for an easy way out, or his health might be questionable enough on its own, or the GOP may finally decide they want an adult at the helm, but I doubt he'll have much support for re-election.

And let's face it, he's likely to do something to cause the economy to crap out, from starting a trade war to an actual war, all without thinking.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor still pay taxes. It is just less of a burden if the wealthy corporations and family dynasties pay their fair share instead of taking advantage of huge loopholes.

And it isn't welfare that ruins people's lives, it is the conservative mentality that does.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I want to add:

Which is why I support removing all party affiliations from all government voting material. It is easy to paint (D) or (R) or (L) or (S) candidates as a whole, but much harder if none of that was available.

I support this.

Then we have TWO people who are trying to make the same foolish change. If you think party identification is a problem, what makes you think that a mere change to the ballot materials will help? Even Eddie Murphy knew that people could remember a name.

No, what you should do is look for the real problem, which is a lack of representation arising from the current system. You can see it in the Electoral College, but also the House, and even the Senate. Winner-Take All, First-Past-the-Post, and the lack of proper apportionment as well as Gerrymandering all contribute to a non-representative electoral system.

You might as well be focusing on the order of names on the ballot for all the good your solution will do in the end.

Re: In other words...

[I'm New Around Here]

Obama waited until he was 7.95 years through his 8 year term to enact it...

It's perhaps a strategy to sneak it past a Congress intent on obstructing him, as it doesn't give them time to react, such as create a specific law against it.

How could they, when it would need his approval to become law? He would obviously veto it.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are approaching this all wrong.

You don't need a "party", you need your own philosophy.

Mine is to vote in my best interests, and in the best interests of my family, and right now at least, that's the Democratic party.

Right now the Trump White House/GOP is proposing the following:

Walling off America. Walls keep people out and can be used to keep people in.
Building more prisons.
Creating a centralized database of voters, and then pruning the voters who don't vote for you.
Deporting millions of people. The ones who pick the food, mostly.
Breaking up families.
Taking healthcare away from 22 million people to give a massive tax break to the very wealthy.
Rolling back regulations that are supposed to protect us from predatory corporations and poison in the water.
Restoring the right of private, for profit schools to scam students.
Giving banks the right to steal from you (I work for one, I know)
Wants to be friends with Putin, a man who kills his enemies, and Russia, a country that just invaded it's neighbor.
Wants to shut down the free press, because screw the First Amendment.

There's more, so right now at least, the GOP is acting like a Super Villain. It's weird.

And so right now at least, my party of choice is easy.

That said, I do not donate to the DNC, I donate to candidates and causes.

Re: In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

... welfare ruins people's lives and destroys their sense of worth ...

Unlike all those republicans, declaring that working for $2/hour gives their life meaning. I like to know where all those 'work for the dole' people are now: Surely the Republican party can proudly proclaim a real benefit from US corporations paying one-fifth of minimum wage.

... have them move all their business beyond your taxing borders ...

Reagan and Bush junior proved rich people can do this at all rates of taxation. This is Republican idealism that has been proven false.

... taxes are consistent percentages with no exemptions at all ...

The problem being that tax-cuts are also used as rewards for obeying the government. First, get rid of the kickback and welfare mentality that applies to corporations.

... pretty populist (rather than pro business).

No, it's Trump saying he doesn't need the rest of the world, because it's better that Americans manufacture socks and iPhone covers. That's a valid economic position but the resulting isolation means the USA no longer makes the rules. I'm waiting to see how that benefits American Exceptionalism.

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

OTOH, the Republicans are students of history as well as reality.

Shit dude, you ain't been reading what your favored politicians actually say. "Legitimate rape" and all that. "Repeal Obamacare" then they can't actually do it. What a joke!

Re: In other words...

[cats-paw]

and i disrespect "independents" because they continue to peddle these false equivalencies.

the democrats absolutely know that things need to be payed for, that's why they raise taxes.

remember those job killing taxes that Obama levied that led to ... no job killing ... but job growth.

that's why democrats lose elections. they'll tell you that we need to raise taxes to pay for services and you brainy independents won't vote for them, cuz, OMG! they are going raise taxes !

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

False equivalency? Who made an equivalency? I said both sides are dumb, and they are. They're also as corrupt as sin, and if you can't see the corruption, you're blind as a brick.

Re: In other words...

[LeftCoastThinker]

We have a limited power representative government with Republicans holding a slight majority. There is a difference between goals and reality. If a few Democrats would admit that Obamacare is an utter failure and vote for the repeal/replace instead of digging in their heels just for shits and giggles, Obamacare would already be replaced. But the Dims don't give a shit about the country or people, only their own power.

Out of millions of statements by thousands of Republicans, yes, you can find a few mis-statements (but I understand the intent, to damn the entire group by the mis-statements of one). The statement you cite was clarified, and the intent, in part, was to reflect the reality of the recent spate of false rape allegations like Tawana Brawley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke Lacrosse rape allegations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the list goes on. Not all rape allegations are false, but not all are legitimate, clearly.

Beyond the legitimacy of the rape allegation, medical statistics indicate that just 5% of rape results in pregnancy, and most of those pregnancies occur in statutory rape (consentuality is not differentiated in the study) where the perpetrator is known by the victim and the act is frequent (so most of these pregnancies could be consentual sex between 18 year old boyfriend and 17 year old girl friend and they would still count as a rape pregnancy). Those are just the medical facts. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Re: In other words...

[HornWumpus]

After it has years of money losing performance and still attracts investors, you will have 'whatabout' point.

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

So which do you think is going to happen first, cutting Obamacare, or tax cuts for the rich?
Betcha it's tax cuts for the rich.

Re: In other words...

[Tenebrousedge]

I'm a single-issue voter. My issue is voting reform -- ditching FPTP. How screwed am I?

Re: In other words...

[phantomfive]

Still better than the zero-issue voters.

Re: In other words...

[Archangel Michael]

Electoral College was to keep California / New York from dominating the national landscape for President. You don't want the Presidential Candidates to be only campaigning in four states. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracies are dangerous mobs, and I don't trust them a single bit.

Re: In other words...

[Archangel Michael]

as people are quite capable of identifying party without having to look at what's on the ballot papers

Your faith in the electorate is stronger than mine. There are far more people who vote "Party Line" without paying any attention to the actual names on the ballot.

Re: In other words...

[LeftCoastThinker]

Why don't you just hide and watch. After 4 years of Trump we can decide if we want 4 more or someone else. Considering the failure that Obama care is, he can hardly do worse than BHO.

Incidentally, the poor might get tax cuts if they actually paid any taxes to begin with...

Thank you Trump!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another victory for Americans.

Re:Thank you Trump!!!

[thaylin]

In what way is this a victory? It limits job growth for no reason other than !SCREW YOU OBAMA!

Re:Thank you Trump!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"dismantlemet"

You're a fucking moron!

Return to...

[galabar]

...the rule of law?

Re:Return to...

[rahvin112]

Rule of Law? I'd have to wonder if this is a another "rule suspension" where Trump appointees are deliberately ignoring the rule of law and imposing a change in rules without following the procedure required by law.

There is a VERY good reason congress required that rule making follow very strict procedures, that public input is received and that this process take a certain amount of time. This will be yet another in a long line of Trump cabinet members breaking the law and making or breaking regulations without following the law. You know what the funny part is, there will people who will defend this but don't consider the consequences of what this means the next time there's a democrat in the presidents office (2020).

Personally I think Judges should start issuing personal fines against the heads of these departments, the rule making process has very strict legally required steps that have been around for several decades. You don't get to just willy-nilly change federal regulations, there is a fucking process that needs to be followed to allow for public comment and to give opposing people and companies the ability to challenge the rules before they go into effect. This administration has CONTEMPT for the rule making process and the heads of departments should be personally financially responsible for that contempt, ignorance of the rule making requirement is not excuse. Maybe when a few of these incompetent idiots Trump nominated get hit with personal fines they will stop breaking the law.

Good, But Trump Is Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Still not tired of winning.

Re:Good, But Trump Is Wrong Again

[Dutchmaan]

I can see you saying that every time Trump successfully takes a shit...

Re:Good, But Trump Is Wrong Again

[Anonymous Coward]

As they say, republicans are glad to let Trump shit in their mouths, just as long as a liberal has to smell it. Winning!

The only thing delayed around here

[Anonymous Coward]

is you nerds SUCKING MY DAMN BALLS! Get on it, bitches!

Re:The only thing delayed around here

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful what you wish for. Some of them might be into that.

Re:The only thing delayed around here

[Anonymous Coward]

creimer for example

Re:The only thing delayed around here

[Anonymous Coward]

I got bitcoin. Where are my cock eggs?

Trump the Dumb

[gweihir]

And so these people will just go someplace else. Does not matter much in the next 4 years, becomes a problem in 10 and a catastrophe in 20.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that a repeal of some lame duck legislation that Barack Obama enacted when he already had one and a half feet out the oval office door is really going to change anything, let alone cause some theoretical catastrophe. But hey anything to take a cheap shot at Trump these days.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans in general are pretty stupid when you control for outliers. That isn't an exclusively American situation.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt that a repeal of some lame duck legislation that Barack Obama enacted when he already had one and a half feet out the oval office door is really going to change anything, let alone cause some theoretical catastrophe. But hey anything to take a cheap shot at Trump these days.

But this is not a cheap shot at Obama?

Why does it matter at wat time during Obama's presidency this was enacted?

Is the timing really the best reason you can think of that this would not work?

Re:Trump the Dumb

[ganjadude]

you spelled obama wrong

Re:Trump the Dumb

[computational super]

You know, people keep saying that: if we don't open our country up to the tidal wave of highly-skilled immigrants that are chomping at the bit to come over here and do the jobs Americans don't know how to do, we're going to lose out to another, more enlightened, more progressive nation. I'm still left scratching my head as to exactly what we'd be losing in this scenario, except for a bunch of immigrants who are doing "highly-skilled" jobs rather than Americans. I guess they move over here and buy cars and houses and groceries, so that stimulates the economy, but if that's why we're importing people, why limit ourselves to just those with "high-tech" degrees? From my perspective as an (American) programmer, it seems like the vast majority of H1B-visa immigrants are coming in from India. Yet... if India is brimming with highly-skilled technical talent, why exactly is it that India itself hasn't become this progressive bastion of technical enrichment? They don't even have to sift through immigration queues, they're already there!

Re:Trump the Dumb

[I'm New Around Here]

If it was worth doing, a president would enact such measures much earlier that a week before leaving office.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

1.2 billion people in a nation 1/3rd of USAs size and with no oil.
Compare with USA- a nation which became rich in the early 1900s by being the gas pump of the world (Keep telling yourself its innovation. Saudi is more innovative) and is still underpopulated
Its not that tough to get ahead in the US. You have to be way smarter and luckier to make it in India
USA is not called the land of opportunity without a reason.
Its underpopulated and the competition is way less.
Anyone smart enough to eke out a middle class living in India is smart enough to be a millionaire in the US.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[gweihir]

Thanks for supporting my point. Although I guess you did not mean to...

Well?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sick of winning, yet?

This is one of the most asinine things the idiot man-baby Donald Trump has done.

Winning! MAGA, baby, MAGA!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about WINNING!

Goombahs troll the Shia Labeuf Cam. Badda bing, badda boom!

Making America Great Again!

Horse Sh&$

[s.petry]

Sorry, it does not create jobs. This is exactly what immigration is supposed to be about. Have something good to offer, become a citizen. Most other countries have this same model for immigration, even those in the West.

Re:Horse Sh&$

[thaylin]

Except there is nothing in the current immigration law that says "have something good to offer, become a citizen" That is what this did though.

Re:Horse Sh&$

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, having something to offer is "starting a company with at least $250k investment". Presumably this company will hire someone in the US and therefore create jobs, but I suppose it could be something like Tata and only hire H1Bs.

Re:Horse Sh&$

[s.petry]

Oh I agree with you, _today_ there is nothing in the laws which says such. In the past things were quite different. Up until we had a massive amount of welfare, if you came to the US and could not offer anything you went home. Many people came into Ellis Island and were turned back. Many more people made it in and attempted to make it, and went back after failure.

This is why immigration reform has been an issue since I was a kid in the late 60s early 70s. The fact that these issues were not addressed is why we still need immigration reform and are having discussions about this needed reform. Not that even most politicians care or will take action...

Re:Horse Sh&$

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I agree with you, _today_ there is nothing in the laws which says such.

What are you talking about? There are multiple provisions in the Naturalization Law today that cover such, including military service and being a desirable worker.

In the past things were quite different. Up until we had a massive amount of welfare, if you came to the US and could not offer anything you went home. Many people came into Ellis Island and were turned back.

Mostly because of ethnicity policies, not ACTUAL legitimate screening. Even diseases were less impactful than the place you were immigrating from, or the religion you held, or the color of your skin.

Many more people made it in and attempted to make it, and went back after failure.

And some made it, then returned home, as they wanted to do.

This is why immigration reform has been an issue since I was a kid in the late 60s early 70s.

What? You mean it wasn't an issue in the -1840s and 1850s, when the Know-Nothing Party (of which John Wilkes Booth was a member) was crusading over it? Gosh. What about the 1880s when it was Chinese in California that got the public's ire? Perhaps the Immigration Restriction League was not actually a real group in the 1890s and early 1900s?

The fact that these issues were not addressed is why we still need immigration reform and are having discussions about this needed reform. Not that even most politicians care or will take action...

Why would they? Immigrants can't vote for them. Better to keep people distracted by the shiny light that they can chase. Was true with the Alien and Naturalization Act, the Know-Nothing Party, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Page Act, the 1903 Immigration Act, the Quota Act, and even the Cuban Refugee Act.

You're being played, and you don't even know it.

But seriously, it's like you have ZERO idea of how immigration or welfare policy works in this country.

The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[rsilvergun]

that might benefit American workers. These Visas were rife with potential fraud (only required $250k, little or no verification). I hate to say it because I've got friends that'll be killed by his healthcare policy but if he actually makes good on the rest of his promises to curtail the H1-B program et al his presidency will benefit me personally. At least as long as I never need pre-existing coverage (or can't just afford to move to California, NY or Massachusetts).

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[thaylin]

by little to no verifification you mean the investment had to come from an approved source?

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[LeftCoastThinker]

Who exactly will be killed by the repeal of Obamacare? Medicaid and Medicare still exist, there are still over 12,000 free clinics in the US, and no ER in the country can turn you away without treatment. On top of that, there are hundreds of minute clinics (and other similar clinics) where you can get checked out by an RNP for $90 with no insurance...

The whole point of buying insurance is to cover against something unexpected. If you choose not to buy insurance and then you have a massive medical expense that creates a pre-existing condition, sorry, you played Russian Roulette and lost. Why should the rest of us who have been paying for insurance all along for being healthy foot the bill for your medical costs after you chose not to buy insurance to begin with (which is what is going on with pre-existing conditions).

Obamacare was nothing about fixing health care or making it more affordable, it was a massive socialist giveaway to the indigent and working poor on the backs of the middle class, which is why everyone who is reading this post (who works for a living) is now paying 120% more for insurance that now has deductibles 2-5x higher than before Obamacare. Rather than making it affordable for everyone, Obamacare made it free for some at the expense of the middle class, who can ill afford a $8,000/year increase in cost of insurance, plus $5000/year deductibles for a family of 4. The increases are not making the insurance companies rich either, many of who have been posting losses and pulling out of exchanges because all that money goes straight to people with pre-existing conditions and/or premium subsidies for the poor.

Poor people deserve what they earn; nothing. Out of the kindness of our hearts, we provide many free medical services for them in the form of free clinics that may or may not have long lines and Medicaid that may or may not have access to a doctor that they like or longer wait times, but beggars can't be choosers (except in Obamacare, apparently). The US sure as hell can't afford to give them all top tier medical care (as evidenced by the cratering of Obamacare along with out of control insurance premiums.)

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would be willing to commit fraud by moving to the liberal CA, NY, or MA who care about others just to selfishly take care of yourself. Yet think that other people who are willing to create new companies are committing fraud just for wanting a long term visa?

Conservatives are the problem with this country, not the immigrants.

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[bryanbrunton]

Except every other civilized country in the world has free socialized healthcare.
Because those countries unlike the stupid red neck Republican base realize that there is no such thing as a free market for healthcare.
Only the blood sucking, callous Republican base live in the fantasy world that healthcare shouldn't be regulated.

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you die a long, lingering, painful death.

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wasting your time on leftcoast, just another brainless RWNJ, spouting faux news talking points. Meanwhile, the rest of the world munches popcorn and watches the US sinking slowly into the swamp of its own shit.
Pity the US never made it to civillised, then they might have got good universal health care.
At least more americans dying improves the world IQ.

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[LeftCoastThinker]

Except all those other countries have fractional costs due to the fact that the US pays to develop all of the medical equipment, all the drugs, all the therapies, all the surgical techniques, etc. Something like 80% plus of all of the above are developed in the US and the rest of the world rips us off with generics and clones, etc. Beyond that, thousands if not millions of people world wide die while waiting for treatment in your "socialized healthcare Nirvana" around the world. In Canada, for example, doctors offices essentially shut down towards the end of the year since the money runs out before the end of the year, and Canada won't pay for life saving drugs that you can get in the US. https://www.city-journal.org/h...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

BTW, WTF do you think Medicaid is anyway? It is by definition socialized healthcare funded by the state. Most of us don't want that shitty care though, we want affordable, high quality, responsive, free market healthcare, which was the envy of the world until Obamacare shit all over it. No one is arguing that health insurance shouldn't be regulated, just that for the majority of Americans who can afford to pay for it shouldn't have to subsidize the poor with the same top end of insurance.

Re:The is the first concrete thing I've seen done

[Anonymous Coward]

>Except every other civilized country in the world has free socialized healthcare.

Here we go again. Why won't liberals just pay for it themselves? If it's really about the poor and the children and the illegals there is absolutely nothing stopping you from giving out your money to a charity or organization that helps those groups with "free" healthcare.

Will you do it? Of course not. What you want is others to pay for it because the tiny and homogenous nordic countries have it.

Your solution as usual will be "tax the rich!!".

Seriously?

[MAXOMENOS]

The Startup Visa idea was also part of Rule of Law. I think you didn't mean "the rule of law" but "the end of immigration," and are just too inured in 4chan/pol/ talking points to speak plainly.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it FUN? Thankfully there have always been huge chunks of humanity who buy into bullshit. I say thankfully because then I can focus on the long term improvement of humanity as a trend and not lose all hope in this modern mix of the enlightenment and the dark ages.

Re:Seriously?

[galabar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The Startup Visa Act had bi-partisan support but was not passed into law." I meant the Rule of Law.

Re:Altogether

[93 Escort Wagon]

It's "altogether", not "all together", you illiterate buffoons.

Not if the order rescinding the rule is signed with a bunch of different people's hands all holding onto the pen at the same time...

(Hey, they have cabinet meetings where they're required to go from person to person praising the President - so anything is possible)

It's just money

[rsilvergun]

you just had to show you had $250k and you're in like Flynn. Aside from obviously letting rich people buy their way in (which I could live with) the concern was you'd be able to forge the paper work, come here, and work on that visa. e.g. instead of creating jobs you'd be be taking it.

Ah yeah... Fuckin India RIGHT UP THE ASS

[Anonymous Coward]

COVFEFE STYLE

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...startup Trump Administration officially delays you.

Job losses

[rsilvergun]

"Start up" visas if you're lucky are there so that rich people can buy their way into a country. If you're not lucky they're used to bring in cheap labor. Paperwork gets forged and the people coming here to start companies instead get jobs. That's the fear. If we weren't already staring down 20 years of H1-B abuses maybe we'd be a little more receptive to these kinds of programs. Show me that the existing rules can be enforced first. Show me that the intent of the existing programs aren't constantly being circumvented. Then we can talk about new programs.

You need capital to innovate

[rsilvergun]

and for a lot of people that's savings from a good paying job. Tough to do when most of them are going to H1-Bs.

Yeah, I'm bitter. I've watched job after job going to cheap, imported labor.

Re:You need capital to innovate

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, I'm bitter. I've watched job after job going to cheap, imported labor.

They should have unionized. They were warned.

Re:You need capital to innovate

[OhPlz]

Paying money to the mafia-nouveau is not the answer.

Re:You need capital to innovate

[crioca]

"Unions are linked to mafia" reads headlines of media companies owned by international corporate conglomerates. Hmmm

Re: You need capital to innovate

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you watched Goodfellas?

Most of Startups fail and EB-5 has been abused

[SPopulisQR]

Most of startups are failing to begin with. US is not hostile, since the key program, EB-1, targeted for top level proven talent is intact. There is also EB-2. Reality is that "investor visa" was abused, and that is the reason it is being rolled back. It was basically turned to money barter to visa, under the disguise of investment, see one link here https://www.theguardian.com/us.... Why nobody is discussing the reasoning why "investor visa" has been abused and, probably, it was the right thing to do.

Re:Most of Startups fail and EB-5 has been abused

[Plus1Entropy]

A rule that was suspended before it went into effect was abused?

Listen to Bernie

[rsilvergun]

and the progressives. They're not saying we won't pay for it. They're saying we _can_ and _should_ pay for it. They then proceed to point to all the other wealthy countries paying for it just fine. Big difference.

Re:Listen to Bernie

[phantomfive]

Actually the progressives would be a lot more realistic if they demonstrated understanding of the concept of incentives. If you tax something, you get less of it, minimum wages reduce employment (something that the vast majority of scientists agree on), etc. Which isn't to say we shouldn't increase the minimum wage, but at least be aware of the tradeoff you're making.

C'mon fucking editors

[Khyber]

"The International Entrepreneur Rule, is the closest the United States has come to the "startup visa" Silicon Valley has long sought, was approved by the Department of Homeland Security in January during President Barack Obama's waning hours in office."

How about we re-write this as such:

"The International Entrepreneur Rule, the closest the US has come to enacting a "startup VISA" which Silicon Valley has long sought, was approved by DHS in January during Barack Obama's last hours in office."

Now it makes more linguistic sense.

Holy shit, Slashdot. You promised so much with your buyout and yet msmash and the rest can't fucking live up to the promises.

BASIC FUCKING ENGLISH. Did *ANY* of the /. editors graduate high school?

Fuck birth certificates, I demand to see fucking DIPLOMAS.

What Trump really thinks

[SoftwareArtist]

This is interesting, because it shows what Trump does when two of his core principles are in conflict. Jobs are good! Foreigners are evil! So which of those does he care about more? What does he do when creating jobs involves letting in foreigners? Now we know: "foreigners are evil" wins out. That's more important to him than creating jobs.

Which tells you that when he uses jobs to justify keeping out foreigners, he's probably just being a hypocrite. Not that that's a surprise.

None of that is true

[rsilvergun]

Folks don't work less if you tax them, especially rich folks. We had a 90% marginal tax rate in the 50s and it was the largest period of growth in US History. Growth slowed to a crawl after tax cuts for the rich started making it a better deal for them to sit on all their money than to spend it.

Minimum Wage does the same thing to a point. And yeah, I can already hear you typing up that tired old talking point about a $200 minimum wage. But think about what happened before minimum wage. Company Stores. Wage Slavery. Yes, there are countries that get by without it, but they're mostly heterogeneous enough that they won't tolerate treating people they see as fellow countrymen as slaves. That doesn't work in our melting pot of easily preyed on minorities.

Basically, as long as you're paying attention and careful to adjust as needed and only as needed there are no trade offs. The trade offs come into play when you try to apply ideology and deeply held beliefs beyond: Everybody deserves a good ilfe.

Re:None of that is true

[phantomfive]

We had a 90% marginal tax rate in the 50s and it was the largest period of growth in US History.

How many people paid that tax rate? Hint: not many.

Basically, as long as you're paying attention and careful to adjust as needed and only as needed there are no trade offs

Now you're dreaming.

Everybody deserves a good life.

Hell yeah.

Re:None of that is true

[rsilvergun]

How many people paid that tax rate? Hint: not many.

That was kind of the point. You don't _want_ that many people making that kind of money. If you do then either you've got Zimbabwe style hyper inflation or you've got out of control wealth inequality. Neither is good for a society.

And yeah, I'm dreaming. People are awful. We killed 200,000 civilians in Iraq and didn't bat an eye. We're selling White Phospher to the Saudis. The crap we're supporting in Yemen is horrifying. If that kinda crap can fly then I don't see how single payer can work. But hey, what am I suppose to do? If you just let the world's horrors crush you you'll be dead in no time. Either from stress or your own hand.

Re:None of that is true

[phantomfive]

That was kind of the point. You don't _want_ that many people making that kind of money.

They were making that kind of money. Now you're just talking like the ignorant democrats I hate. You didn't look it up, you just kind of 'guessed' or something. There were loopholes and the only people who couldn't get around it were athletes and entertainers (but I repeat myself).

Re:None of that is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks don't work less if you tax them, especially rich folks. We had a 90% marginal tax rate in the 50s and it was the largest period of growth in US History.

Myth. Mellon showed during the 1920's that there was a limit of how much you could tax the rich - if you exceeded it, you would get less net government income. Given the tax laws of the time, he calculated the income tax limit was 25%. He proved this as Secretary of the Treasury by getting President Coolidge to lower tax rates, which hugely increased government income.

Incidentally, he favoured lowering tax rates for both the poor and the rich.

The tax laws today are different, so the magic number might not be the same. A lot more loopholes have been added - the US federal tax code is over 2000 pages - a hugely unethical body of law - and you can hide a lot of loopholes in that many pages). But you might want to consider that President Obama was paying 18.7% in 2015, out of a 400k salary - probably a higher salary than any Slashdot reader makes.

Economist Thomas Piketty has data showing the top .01% of income earners paid an effective 31% income tax rate in 1960 (when the top rate was officially 91%), compared with a rate of 25% in 2004. So hardly anybody was actually paying that 90% rate.

That period of high growth was NOT the result of a real tax rate of 90%+ - that number is just smoke and mirrors - the high growth was the result of other factors (primarily the undoing of FDR's "New Deal" and the wisdom of President Eisenhower in limiting government size and spending, plus the development of wartime technologies into the business sector).

If you want to fix things today, the right thing to do is to hugely simplify the tax code. Get it down from 2400 pages to 50 pages - and make it truly progressive. The new tax code also needs to take into account inheritance (protecting ordinary people, but going after the rich) and transfer of funds or property overseas (including IP to deal with things like the Irish tax shelter issue). The new tax code also needs to be progressive for capital gains, but AFTER inflation (or all those ordinary people with houses will never support the change).

The many regressive and hidden taxes complicate the picture, of course. We should get rid of most or all of these taxes. Anything paid for by sales or property taxes could and should be paid for by income taxes. It's impossible to make sales or property taxes anything other than regressive - no matter how hard you try, you will miss really important considerations and end up hurting those most in need (one way or another). I won't belabour the point, since this issue has been discussed on this forum before.

If you did all this, you would find that the government would not need to pretend to have a 90% tax rate on the highest incomes : under those circumstances, just as Mellon demonstrated in the 1920's, a much lower real tax rate would produce far more income than we currently get.

The unethical members of the accounting and legal professions would fight this tooth and nail, which is a major reason things are such a mess. Bribery in the form of "campaign contributions" does enormous harm to society, and having corrupt politicians select judges ensures that legal ethics problems do not get fixed. The 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law invalidates the current federal tax code on a legal ethics basis alone - but the largely unethical judiciary will do nothing to force the government to correct matters, despite their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights.

Now you're just trolling

[rsilvergun]

and not even doing a good job of it. And yes, they were paying that. Keep in mind the rate didn't kick in until $1 mil in 1950s money (about 12 mil today). The modern day tax loop holes are an artifact of changes to CEO pay, loan structuring to the ultra wealthy (0% tax rates), etc. Finally, you couldn't offshore your money because you were frightened the commies were going to steal it.

Re:Now you're just trolling

[phantomfive]

Not many people paid it. Joe DiMaggio had to pay it because he couldn't find a loophole. Here are some good numbers, although framed in a polemic.

In 1958...according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

And whoever told you that people didn't offshore their money in the 50s is lying to you through their teeth.

this rule was a hack

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the commie nytimes, the rule would have changed how DHS defines "parole," which is usually used for things like humanitarian purposes. The right way to do this would have been through legislation, not pretending it was something else.

Because other similar "investment" visas have been hugely abused, also revealed by the commie nytimes, there is good reason to believe this one would also be abused with the low threshold of $250k.

So, maybe it is good that it is being deep-sixed.

As for the motivation, that probably has nothing to do with the merits, but rather only that Trump must be the un-Obama. Sometimes the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons. Also, vice versa.

Europe

[Stubbyfingers]

Will welcome entrepreneurs

Qualified Investor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing that has nothing to do with the definition of 'qualified investor' as used in the legislation. I'm not sure what you're doing spreading this kind of misinformation, but you could consider stopping for sure.

Okay, so I know you all are lazy fucks and haven't bothered to google what the definition is because you're lazy fucks, so the short form is that you actually have to have a history of successfully investing in startups. It's almost like someone smarter than you thought of the obvious loophole. This fucking country...