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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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"

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[HornWumpus]

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

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...

[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...

[thaylin]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

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.

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).

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&$

[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:Good, But Trump Is Wrong Again

[Dutchmaan]

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

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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)

Re:Trump the Dumb

[ganjadude]

you spelled obama wrong

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.

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: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: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.

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

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.

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:English, msmash

[unixisc]

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

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.

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.

Re:Trump the Dumb

[gweihir]

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

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).

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.

Europe

[Stubbyfingers]

Will welcome entrepreneurs