The First 100 days

And keep in mind that our bankruptcy courts are packed with businesses that didn't spend money wisely. Of course, some of those businesses were Trump businesses.

 

His background has been very good at doing what's best for America. Also making his base very happy pretty much on everything. They aren't happy at all on that one decision. Like Iatrogenic said that he is a businessman. The example you gave was from his personal business standpoint. Right now his business is MAGA. That was a bad decision and even he knows it. There was a rush and he made a bad decision. I bet if he were to reflect on it now that the dust has settled, he'd have done it differently. That's just my opinion.

 

I am pleased at least one person got the reference

 

I wonder if this will impact how or if illegal immigrants are counted in the census. If it does, then California and Texas are going to get hosed in the electoral college and in reapportionment.

 

I'll admit that I didn't get it right away. And I've actually never seen Silence of the Lambs. However, a lawyer whom I used to consult on cases from time to time sometimes referred to the "Silence of the Lambs tuck." I didn't know what he meant, and he told me to Google it, Wich I did. So I know what it is now, but I sorta wish I didn't.

 

It was a great movie, but unfortunately there are two or three scenes in it that you basically can't unsee. That's definitely started playing a role in my movie choices.

 

It was already unbalanced. On the funding side under Obama, Calif greatly benefitted while Texas suffered.

 

Imagine that.

 

Citation?

The Atlantic outlined some research from WalletHub in 2017. This chart shows how much federal funding each state resident receives on average compared to how much they send to D.C.

California is still a net giver while Texas in this study is a net taker.

Here is WalletHub's 2018 revision that was just posted a week ago.

 

I've never really understood the relevance of this chart. I mean, I know what people are TRYING to do with it. But federal income tax isn't related to what state you live in - it's based on your income, wherever it might be. If states were paying this tax, then you'd have an argument.

As it is, the takeaway here seems to be that those slacker states getting all that federal revenue need to force their citizens to start working two jobs to make more income and level out that disparity. Or they need to boot those industries out that are getting federal subsidies and send them to states where citizens are earning more and getting less. Or get rid of all the people on federal assistance. Or the old people. Or something.

 

Excellent point. These types of studies are intentionally misleading. All things being equal (income, deductions, etc.), the same individual in California pays the same in Federal taxes and gets the same Federal benefits as an individual in Texas. The obtuse conclusion is that there are more high income earners in California that need less Federal benefits than most other states - shocking.

 

Now do it without military spending.

 

...... and federal prisons.

 

But muh trade wahs!

Trump has secured a major Trade Deal with South Korea
The deal --
-- opens the South’s market to American autos by lifting existing limits,
-- extends tariffs for South Korean truck exports, and
-- restricts, by nearly a third, the amount of steel the SoKos can export to the US

 

A US airstrike killed the highest ranking Al Queda dude in Libya -- Musa Abu Dawud. No civilian casualties

 

And I would argue that this is the type of staying action that we should predominantly use against terrorists org's. Just keep them from gaining momentum. Keep them from owning things and territory. If they get a plane, take it out. If they get a tank, take it out. If we can identify a base, take it out.

But don't try to do nation building. That has been and remains a fools errand. It is virtually impossible to identify the REAL good guys in a nation building scenario. Most of them are just trying to suck up to the US so that the money flows through them and they can leverage US funds to secure more power.

 

Could not agree more!

 

The Washington Post is not going to like this

 

Any conservative shouldn't like those words from Trump. He is advocating for more taxes and more government intervention.

 

+1

Team vs. ideology.

 

I disagree. Conservatism is not the utter absence of regulation and taxes. Taxes and regulation are necessary elements of running a country and an economy. Picking Tom's steel versus Joe's steel is not a wise use of regulation or policy but picking US steel versus Chinese steel is. While we don't want to pick the winner between Amazon, WalMart and Google, closing gaps in tax policy and regulation based on a historic brick and mortar commerce model that allows online retailers tax advantages is a wise policy move. So long as this is a policy that impacts all players then I don't see a problem with crafting tax policy to reflect the changing landscape of commerce.

I for one would prefer a policy that doesn't allow any particular commercial entity to grow so large as to squeeze out the mom and pop and regional players(eg. WalMart-ization of every small town)

 

See the Sherman Anti-Trust Act aka the best law we ever came up with that we, unfortunately, do not enforce anymore.

 

I wouldn't say we don't enforce it anymore. I'd say we enforce it erratically.

 

Two points about Amazon. First, it is a crock that they can sometimes sell products without charging sales tax. That is a ridiculous advantage for them. However, that's a matter of state law and none of Trump's concern.

Second, I don't understand the issue with Postal Service. If USPS is losing money on its arrangement with Amazon, then negotiate a better deal with them when their contract comes up. Bellyaching about it doesn't make much sense.

 

Washington State is collecting tax. I pay the same sales tax with Amazon that I would if I walked down to Walmart or Best Buy. That's fair and is a state tax agreement. Amazon (and all) online retailers had an advantage for a long time which seems to have evaporated yet the retailers are still kicking ***.

This wasn't about Amazon but rather the WaPo and Jeff Bezos. Like most of what Trump tweets out, this was a political cat-fight rather than any momentous policy position.

 

I could be wrong on this, but I think they still don't charge sales tax when third party sellers sell their stuff on Amazon.

Almost surely true.

 

You mean worst law, but we have had that discussion. You were able to come up with one South African company that is no longer a monopoly, however. No other example, without government intervention, is available. Why you believe that government intervention is a good thing is difficult to understand given your other stances. Keep in mind you are walking lock step with our token communist on this issue. That should give you pause.