I should add that I would view this as tyrannical. Eminent domain laws are actually another good answer to treco’s query regarding examples of tyranny.
I would not view it as tyrannical because it is unconstitutional, but because it would be oppressing the owners of Hilton Hotels by violating their property rights.
At least he drained the swamp & labelled China a currency manipulator. Tack on the fact that his tax plan is dropping billionaire panties all over the country and you get another big win for Murica. Always look for the silver lining.
You forgot about him putting Hillary “Lock Her Up!” Clinton in the Stone Lonely. It was nice of him to let her wear vertical (as opposed to horizontal) prison stripes–very slimming.
That’s a good point. He also investigated the Clinton foundation for fraud. That’s the purpose of his weekly/bi-weekly trips down to FL. He’s down there rooting out waste within the govt.
Watching these guys fumble all over healthcare is funny… All this time foaming at the mouth about repeal and they cant even agree and they are the majority… They are so used to doing nothing they forgot how to do stuff… I guess its true if you dont use use it you loose it hahah… #Bigleaguefail
No, not at all. The GOP won it’s majority without Trump or the wall.
Um, how about the judicial overreach of the non elected 9th circuit court? Also, how about being concerned when Obama threatened city’s funding over fucking transgender bathrooms,(or am I not allowed to bring up the Big O?) The hypocrisy is astounding here.
Regarding the sanctuary cities:
Title 8 U.S.C. 1324 makes it quite explicit that harboring and concealing from detection illegal aliens is a felony, whether committed by individuals or sanctuary city officials:
Harboring – Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who – knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. Arrest the mayors if you can’t cut funding(which you can.)
Hating Trump has truly become a religion.
You know the rules you are only to mention Trump on this thread and it must be something negative.
It’s super simple at this point. If it’s constitutional, all he has to do is submit it to the SCOTUS. It’s no longer hung AND is now repub controlled.
Yes and that’s what they’ll do but do you not see the problem here? The 9th circuit court has no interest in interpreting the constitution as written and are walking a dangerous line. They don’t get to make new rules. See above example. Everyone, foreign and domestic, is apparently covered under the U.S. constitution, according to the 9th circuit… Woo judicial activism!
Kinda seems like it’s working to me. This is the entire point of the checks and balances. If this judge interprets things differently than POTUS, he shoots it down. If the SCOTUS interprets things differently than this judge, he gets shot down.
All of this is coupled by the fact that if Trump was going through the legislative process instead of spamming EOs, the 9th circuit would be eating shit right now.
By who? Did I say I thought it was ok that Obama threatened to withhold funding over the transgender rule? Also, what do you know about Title IX - does it allow funds to be withheld if states, cities, etc. don’t comply? Because that’s what determines if federal funds can be withheld or not.
Do you know?
In other words, whether withholding of funds is right or wrong in one case doesn’t impact whether it is right or wrong in another case. That’s all dependent on what the statute says, and you’re talking about different statutes.
Yep, and as long as they meet the “harboring” test, the Feds have a case to arrest and fine. But not withhold funding. More on that below.
[your article]
Did you even read it? It says Congress can pass a law saying federal funding can be conditional, which is true, and no one is arguing it. The problem with Trump’s order is that Trump wants to add to new conditions that…wait for it…Congress has not provided for in the statute.
That’s the problem.
Here’s the deal (which is available to anyone willing to actually read):
The statute says there are three limited circumstances where the Feds can withhold funds from states and cities that won’t comply with immigration laws.
Trump issued an executive order saying the attorney general can withhold at will.
The judge in San Francisco said (essentially*), no, you can’t issue an executive order that adds to or gets rid of the three conditions to withhold funds Congress provided for in the statute, but went on to say, you can withhold under the three conditions if you want, that’s not unlawful.
The DOJ even orally argued that their intent was only to operate within the three express conditions. The judge didn’t believe them on the basis that if that were the case, you wouldn’t need the extra step of the executive order with language that reads more broadly. But, importantly, the DOJ has effectively limited itself via the statements made at oral argument that it will limit itself to the three conditions going forward - it can’t go back on that now.
*the judge isn’t deciding the case at this point, but is considering the merits to decide on the request to get an injunction to prevent it from being implemented.
So, does that sound like out-of-control judicial activism to you?
A very well thought out and logical post which no one could disagree with.
Nicely done my friend.
Yup good ol checks and balances… If you dont like it move to Russia
@anon50325502 I know you initially liked Trumps tax plan and you know a lot more about taxes and the tax system then I do. What are your thoughts on this article?
I would have to read up on what Kansas has done to say one way or the other. I think there are a couple of important things to consider, though:
Kansas’ GDP is less than 1% of US GDP. Comparing two entities that are of such drastically different scales would require a significant amount of noise correction.
They aren’t wrong in that it is a tax cut for “the rich”. However, I don’t look at it that way. It’s really a tax cut for job creators that take on significant amounts of personal risk in order to employee people. Employees generally take on very little to no risk.
Why should job creators have to take on both the majority of the risk and the majority of the tax liability?
I think often times when tax rates/law comes up we focus too much on how the change will affect current tax revenue. I.e. these cuts will obviously reduce revenue, primarily by benefiting the wealthy (as all tax cuts do). However, if the cuts stimulate economic growth tax revenue will not remain static as many more people will be employed and at higher levels.
*This won’t cut it:
I’d be so much more on board with Republican level tax breaks if they were focused PURELY at job creators. Blanketly giving it to the rich when not all of them are job creators is what creates this huge PR mess they’re always dealing with.
I mean, that’s basically what the proposal is doing. The top rate is only dropping from like 39 to 37 IIRC. They are specifically targeting job creators by creating a pass-through rate and lowering the corporate rate.
It’s impossible to focus purely on job creators because our system is tiered and business income is taxed at ordinary rates (for pass-through entities) so any reduction in any rate benefits the people that pay taxes, which are overwhelmingly the rich. Of course, people are spinning it as a loophole and/or a payout for “the rich”. It’s literally just them getting to keep more of their earnings.
The AMT elimination is really the only change that strictly benefits the rich, but it’s a load of BS anyway, imo.
That’s a big ‘if.’
