Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content

bostonangler

Members
  • Content Count

    8,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bostonangler

  1. Suddenly, it appears the U.S. intelligence community is back in good standing over at Fox News. Since Trump’s election, an inescapably common refrain of the president and his biggest boosters in conservative media has been to rail against the “deep state.” The Russian election interference probe, they’ve repeatedly said, was nothing more than a coup or disinformation campaign perpetrated by the anti-Trump intelligence community. Over the past 24 hours, however, incessant Fox griping over “deep state” suddenly went quiet, replaced by sober pleas that—when it comes to the info allegedly justifying Trump’s ordered airstrike killing Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani—the U.S. intelligence community’s findings should be heeded and taken seriously as unimpeachably correct information. Immediately after the Pentagon confirmed U.S. responsibility for the strike, claiming it “was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” Fox News host Sean Hannity—perhaps the most well-known “deep state” critic in media—heaped praise upon the intelligence community. “The ability of the military, our intelligence community, the State Department, and the president making the call, very quickly, you know, understood that the Iranian forces on the ground bore a direct threat to the American people,” said Hannity, calling into his own show on Thursday night. “Once the intelligence was confirmed, once the understanding that they were there to sow the discord and discontent, the president acted as quickly as possible, taking out this top general.” “But I will say the big headline is, this is a huge victory for American intelligence, a huge victory for our military, a huge victory for the State Department, and a huge victory and total leadership by the president,” the primetime host, who has spent more than two years and countless on-air segments railing against shadowy “deep state” intelligence, concluded. By Friday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went even further than the Pentagon, saying that it was necessary to take out Soleimani as it disrupted an “imminent attack,” adding that “the risk doing nothing was enormous” and the “intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump acted decisively last night.” Following Pompeo’s assertions, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade—who last month chastised a Daily Beast writer for not asking Lisa Page about a deep-state conspiracy theory—openly defended and applauded the intelligence community. After Fox News star Geraldo Rivera sarcastically noted the “U.S. intelligence has been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region, for no real reason,” he told Kilmeade not to “start cheering this on” while claiming his colleague “never met a war you didn’t like.” “I will cheer it on. I am elated,” Kilmeade exclaimed, adding that it’s “not true” that he loves war. During a later appearance on Fox News’ The Daily Briefing, host Dana Perino—a former Bush White House press secretary—repeatedly claimed an attack was “imminent,” asking Kilmeade what the consequences would have been if Trump didn’t act. “What everyone is missing, it's not our choice,” the Fox & Friends host replied. “These things are happening. It's how we react to what is happening.” Kilmeade—no longer skeptical of intelligence officials—also insisted that the president didn’t need to brief Congress before killing the Iranian leader because he needed to act quickly due to the information obtained. “But if you want him to get congressional approval over a strike that is time sensitive when an attack is imminent and he landed at the airport? Are you kidding me?” Kilmeade huffed. During Friday’s broadcast of Fox Business Network’s Varney and Co., anchor Stuart Varney also seemed a bit amnesiac over his previous missives against the intelligence community. Despite claiming in the past that the “deep state” was trying to undermine Trump’s presidency, the pro-Trump host credulously touted Pompeo’s “imminent attack” claim throughout his show. “That’s what Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, told Fox News earlier this morning, that there was an imminent attack and the president ordered the killing to stop that imminent attack,” Varney proclaimed at one point. “Good cause to do it.” In a later segment, Fox & Friends Weekend host and unofficial Trump adviser Pete Hegseth—who once noted that the “American people didn’t vote for the Deep State”—also found newfound praise for the intel community, adding that Trump likely waited until the “intelligence lined up.” A Fox News guest, however, seemed to reveal one of the biggest self-contradictions. Former Trump adviser Christian Whiton lamented Friday on Fox News’ Outnumbered Overtime that it is “really sad” that Democrats “aren’t willing to give our president and our military the benefit of the doubt in a crisis.” A few weeks ago, though, Whiton gave no such benefit of the doubt to a member of both the military and intelligence community. During an interview with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, Whiton called former National Security Council member and impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman a “deep state crybaby” who “poured himself into an Army outfit to go and frankly speak contemptuous things against the commander-in-chief.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-biggest-fox-news-boosters-234154938.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9maW5hbmNlLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9wb3J0Zm9saW8vcGZfMS92aWV3P2d1Y2NvdW50ZXI9MSZndWNlX3JlZmVycmVyPWFIUjBjSE02THk5bWFXNWhibU5sTG5saGFHOXZMbU52YlM5d2IzSjBabTlzYVc4dmNHWmZNUzkyYVdWMyZndWNlX3JlZmVycmVyX3NpZz1BUUFBQUNJVEMwbDU1RVRBWGpleXIxSmdoZ0UwU0NTZWxOZEdBSnVFS3l2cWVTSUsyOEJBcnNHbTFBNEdQUUQwTDVudmwxMkw4YUxmWVFtN05ZUkFZX09yc194RnhaQTZwcUh5dy1jV1N4Wk9wVElVVV80OFJCZWxXajdKT3lBSHZKSVJMdk5ZQVU2VHktdTlQMk9ReWE4VW5yYS14RE5FZDViV0pHci1EQW9ONktocw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEfH-WD52Mh4cxrIwCBEQj6t1fVEzPTLBQt45qRg73mSSXKFpeH7lViUuAJA8I48x4VKx_80mEHk74UDbD5drL5igfKSHlmvW4_pmeULTCCvdVFAEw0Ib3aobFDUs8lO9qgneMgn4G2scRQ_AZHLHTBhRrSW1b9NxwPL5xf92Akn Maybe the Deep State is making it's play... Sucking them in and dropping the hammer.. They can't be bad one day and great the next, or can they? B/A
  2. She isn't going to be in the race, so I wouldn't lose sleep over her... JMHO B/A
  3. Yes I predicted this months ago. Trump like other politicians use war as a way to stay in office... Nothing new. B/A
  4. I agree the FED is a private bank and who trusts a bankster? But the numbers are pretty simple. Unemployment is low but the jobs created are low paying service jobs... Debt is at all time highs. Consumer and government debt are going to cause a lot of hurt and tariffs aren't helping. Phase one of the trade war still isn't signed off and who knows what happens next... B/A
  5. Trump's tariffs are backfiring on the U.S., Fed finds A new study from the Federal Reserve found that President Trump’s tariffs are backfiring. According to the Fed study, the tariffs that went into effect in 2018 have led to not only higher producer prices but also a loss of jobs across the U.S. — particularly in manufacturing. A previous analysis also found that tariffs have cost the U.S. $42 billion so far. “In terms of manufacturing employment, rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs each contribute to the negative relationship, and the contribution from these channels more than offsets a small positive effect from import protection,” the new Fed study stated. “For producer prices, the relative increases associated with tariffs are due solely to the rising input cost channel. We find little evidence for a relationship between industrial production and any of the three tariff channels considered.” President Donald Trump speaks to 5000 contractors at the Shell Chemicals Petrochemical Complex on August 13, 2019 in Monaca, Pennsylvania. (Photo: Jeff Swensen/Getty Images) ‘You cannot simply raise tariffs’ Back in December 2018, Trump tweeted: “Almost 500,000 Manufacturing Jobs created since I won the Election. Remember when my opponents were saying that we couldn’t create this type of job anymore. Wrong, in fact these are among our best and most important jobs!” However, the ***-for-tat tariffs between the U.S. and China have thrown a wrench in his plans to revitalize the manufacturing sector. “While the longer-term effects of the tariffs may differ from those that we estimate here, the results indicate that the tariffs, thus far, have not led to increased activity in the U.S. manufacturing sector,” the Fed study stated. According to the study, the industries hardest hit by the retaliatory tariffs from China include producers of aluminum sheet, iron and steel, motor vehicles, household appliances, and computer and other electronic equipment. Manufacturing is the industry hit hardest by the 2018 tariffs. (Photo: Federal Reserve) Doug Barry, senior director of communications and publications for the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC), told Yahoo Finance that the findings came as no surprise. “They reflect what we have been hearing anecdotally for quite some time,” he said. “As the report authors note, in an era of globally interconnected supply chains, you cannot simply raise tariffs on imports to protect domestic manufacturing because a lot of those imports are actually intermediate goods that domestic manufacturers need.” The Fed study noted this as well and highlighted that the retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners offset any positive gains that came from reduced competition. “These retaliatory tariffs may harm U.S. manufacturers by decreasing their competitiveness in foreign markets,” the Fed study said. According to the USCBC, exports to China support over 1.1 million American jobs. Factory workers have particularly bearing the brunt of the retaliatory tariffs from China — the October 2019 job report highlighted the contraction in total factory payrolls, “which not only increases price for companies but also causes investment uncertainty,” according to Bloomberg. ‘The consequences will be very bad’ U.S. President-elect Donald Trump stands with Carrier worker Sadieka Alexander while touring a carrier factory in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S. (Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar) Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG, mostly shrugged off the Fed study findings, saying that it looks “increasingly like the U.S.-China trade war was all smoke and no fire.” However, he did note one issue that is still at play. “The biggest risk to the economy is the uncertainty caused by the confusion about how long the trade war might last,” he told Yahoo Finance. “Companies don’t tend to undertake new projects or expand their businesses during uncertain times and so investment spending that drives GDP can suffer.” According to the Tax Foundation, GDP has shrunk by 0.55% as a result of the trade war. But for now, “the coast is clear,” Rupkey said, because of the phase one trade deal. “The major hit to the economy was going to take place if the Trump administration went all in with 30% tariffs on $540 billion of goods that America imported from China in 2018,” he said. “That tariff tax would have braked economic growth hard from a 2% forecast in 2020 to just 1.1 or 1.2%.” Despite the first step towards a trade resolution, Barry is firm in his stance that trade relations between the U.S. and China need to resume for the good of the American economy. “People who advocate decoupling the U.S. and China economies should realize that the consequences will be very bad for U.S. businesses and workers,” Barry said. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-tariffs-are-backfiring-fed-154909223.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9maW5hbmNlLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9wb3J0Zm9saW8vcGZfMS92aWV3L3YxP2d1Y2VfcmVmZXJyZXI9YUhSMGNITTZMeTltYVc1aGJtTmxMbmxoYUc5dkxtTnZiUzl3YjNKMFptOXNhVzh2Y0daZk1TOTJhV1YzJmd1Y2VfcmVmZXJyZXJfc2lnPUFRQUFBQ0lUQzBsNTVFVEFYamV5cjFKZ2hnRTBTQ1NlbE5kR0FKdUVLeXZxZVNJSzI4QkFyc0dtMUE0R1BRRDBMNW52bDEyTDhhTGZZUW03TllSQVlfT3JzX3hGeFpBNnBxSHl3LWNXU3haT3BUSVVVXzQ4UkJlbFdqN0pPeUFIdkpJUkx2TllBVTZUeS11OVAyT1F5YThVbnJhLXhETkVkNWJXSkdyLURBb042S2hzJmd1Y2NvdW50ZXI9Mg&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFa9bsWkJ5zM-QW35PtWhr1B6pXIXjfyU8v7u2mcwRaM32v8hd_n6AcmVws8MJwEGUAp6NhcnlAJ_LVSkzPc2NAOVy6PRwLXuYRmLrqZly0tEtoJMNa11mpWeRVwm9G1DXgq09f7yW1_XSDe2E4M2sBA9BGwpz83I2Mw1nhytkqG It's basic economics really... B/A
  6. Thanks Umbertino and to you as well...And to all DVers, have a safe and prosperous New Year! B/A
  7. The overhaul of the federal tax law in 2017 was the signature legislative achievement of Donald Trump’s presidency. The biggest change to the tax code in three decades, the law slashed taxes for big companies, part of an effort to coax them to invest more in the United States and to discourage them from stashing profits in overseas tax havens. Corporate executives, major investors and the wealthiest Americans hailed the tax cuts as a once-in-a-generation boon not only to their own fortunes but also to the U.S. economy. But big companies wanted more — and, not long after the bill became law in December 2017, the Trump administration began transforming the tax package into a greater windfall for the world’s largest corporations and their shareholders. The tax bills of many big companies have ended up even smaller than what was anticipated when the president signed the bill. One consequence is that the federal government may collect hundreds of billions of dollars less over the coming decade than previously projected. The budget deficit has jumped more than 50% since Trump took office and is expected to top $1 trillion in 2020, partly as a result of the tax law. Laws like the 2017 tax cuts are carried out by federal agencies that first must formalize them via rules and regulations. The process of writing the rules, conducted largely out of public view, can determine who wins and who loses. Starting in early 2018, senior officials in Trump’s Treasury Department were swarmed by lobbyists seeking to insulate companies from the few parts of the tax law that would have required them to pay more. The crush of meetings was so intense that some top Treasury officials had little time to do their jobs, according to two people familiar with the process. The lobbyists targeted a pair of major new taxes that were supposed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars from companies that had been avoiding taxes in part by claiming their profits were earned outside the United States. The blitz was led by a cross section of the world’s largest companies, including Anheuser-Busch, Credit Suisse, General Electric, United Technologies, Barclays, Coca-Cola, Bank of America, UBS, IBM, Kraft Heinz, Kimberly-Clark, News Corporation, Chubb, ConocoPhillips, HSBC and the American International Group. Thanks in part to the chaotic manner in which the bill was rushed through Congress — a situation that gave the Treasury Department extra latitude to interpret a law that was, by all accounts, sloppily written — the corporate lobbying campaign was a resounding success. Through a series of obscure regulations, the Treasury carved out exceptions to the law that mean many leading American and foreign companies will owe little or nothing in new taxes on offshore profits, according to a review of the Treasury’s rules, government lobbying records, and interviews with federal policymakers and tax experts. Companies were effectively let off the hook for tens if not hundreds of billions of taxes that they would have been required to pay. “Treasury is gutting the new law,” said Bret Wells, a tax law professor at the University of Houston. “It is largely the top 1% that will disproportionately benefit — the wealthiest people in the world.” It is the latest example of the benefits of the Republican tax package flowing disproportionately to the richest of the rich. Even a tax break that was supposed to aid poor communities — an initiative called “opportunity zones” — is being used in part to finance high-end developments in affluent neighborhoods, at times benefiting those with ties to the Trump administration. Of course, companies didn’t get everything they wanted, and Brian Morgenstern, a Treasury spokesman, defended the department’s handling of the tax rules. “No particular taxpayer or group had any undue influence at any time in the process,” he said. Racing for a Win Ever since the birth of the modern federal income tax in 1913, companies have been concocting ways to avoid it. In the late 1990s, American companies accelerated their efforts to claim that trillions of dollars of profits they earned in high-tax places like the United States, Japan or Germany were actually earned in low- or no-tax places like Luxembourg, Bermuda or Ireland. Google, Apple, Cisco, Pfizer, Merck, Coca-Cola, Facebook and many others have deployed elaborate techniques that let the companies pay taxes at far less than the 35% corporate tax rate in the United States that existed before the 2017 changes. Their playful nicknames — like Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich — made them sound benign. The Obama administration and lawmakers from both parties have tried to combat this profit shifting, but their efforts mostly stalled. When Trump and congressional Republicans assembled an enormous tax-cut package in 2017, they pitched it in part as a grand bargain: Companies would get the deep tax cuts that they had spent years clamoring for, but the law would also represent a long-overdue effort to fight corporate tax avoidance and the shipment of jobs overseas. “The situation where companies are actually encouraged to move overseas and keep their profits overseas makes no sense,” Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said on the Senate floor in November 2017. Republicans were racing to secure a legislative victory during Trump’s first year in office — a period marked by the administration’s failure to repeal Obamacare and an embarrassing procession of political blunders. Sweeping tax cuts could give Republicans a jolt of much-needed momentum heading into the 2018 midterm elections. To speed things along, Republicans used a congressional process known as “budget reconciliation,” which blocked Democrats from filibustering and allowed Republicans to pass the bill with a simple majority. But to qualify for that parliamentary green light, the net cost of the bill — after accounting for different tax cuts and tax increases — had to be less than $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The bill’s cuts totaled $5.5 trillion. The corporate income tax rate shrank to 21% from 35%, and companies also won a tax break on the trillions in profits brought home from offshore. To close the gap between the $5.5 trillion in cuts and the maximum price tag of $1.5 trillion, the package sought to raise new revenue by eliminating deductions and introducing new taxes. Shifting Money Two of the biggest new taxes were supposed to apply to multinational corporations, and lawmakers bestowed them with easy-to-pronounce acronyms — BEAT and GILTI — that belie their complexity. BEAT stands for the base erosion and anti-abuse tax. It was aimed largely at foreign companies with major operations in the United States, some of which had for years minimized their U.S. tax bills by shifting money between American subsidiaries and their foreign parent companies. Instead of paying taxes in the United States, companies send the profits to countries with lower tax rates. The BEAT aimed to make that less lucrative. Some payments that companies sent to their foreign affiliates would face a new 10% tax. The other big measure was called GILTI: global intangible low-taxed income. To reduce the benefit companies reaped by claiming that their profits were earned in tax havens, the law imposed an additional tax of up to 10.5% on some offshore earnings. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the congressional panel that estimates the impacts of tax changes, predicted that the BEAT and GILTI would bring in $262 billion over a decade — roughly enough to fund the Treasury Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Cancer Institute for 10 years. Sitting in the Oval Office on Dec. 22, 2017, Trump signed the tax cuts into law. It was — and remains — the president’s most significant legislative achievement. Built-In Loopholes From the start, the new taxes were pocked with loopholes. In the BEAT, for example, Senate Republicans hoped to avoid a revolt by large companies. They wrote the law so that any payments an American company made to a foreign affiliate for something that went into a product — as opposed to, say, interest payments on loans — were excluded from the tax. Let’s say an American pharmaceutical company sells pills in the United States. The pills are manufactured by a subsidiary in Ireland, and the American parent pays the Irish unit for the pills before they are sold to the public. Those payments mean that the company’s profits in the United States, where taxes are relatively high, go down; profits in tax-friendly Ireland go up. Because such payments to Ireland wouldn’t be taxed, some companies that had been the most aggressive at shifting profits into offshore havens were spared the full brunt of the BEAT. Other companies, like General Electric, were surprised to be hit by the new tax, thinking it applied only to foreign multinationals, according to Pat Brown, who had been GE’s top tax expert. Brown, now the head of international tax policy at the accounting and consulting firm PwC, said on a podcast this year that the Trump administration should bridge the gap between expectations about the tax law and how it was playing out in reality. He lobbied the Treasury on behalf of GE. “The question,” he said, “is how creative and how expansive is Treasury and the IRS able to be.” An Exhaustive Lobbying Campaign Almost immediately after Trump signed the bill, companies and their lobbyists — including GE’s Brown — began a full-court pressure campaign to try to shield themselves from the BEAT and GILTI. The Treasury Department had to figure out how to carry out the hastily written law, which lacked crucial details. Chip Harter was the Treasury official in charge of writing the rules for the BEAT and GILTI. He had spent decades at PwC and the law firm Baker McKenzie, counseling companies on the same sorts of tax-avoidance arrangements that the new law was supposed to discourage. Starting in January 2018, he and his colleagues found themselves in nonstop meetings — roughly 10 a week at times — with lobbyists for companies and industry groups. The Organization for International Investment — a powerful trade group for foreign multinationals like Swiss food company Nestlé and Dutch chemical maker LyondellBasell — objected to a Treasury proposal that would have prevented companies from using a complex currency-accounting maneuver to avoid the BEAT. The group’s lobbyists were from PwC and Baker McKenzie, Harter’s former firms, according to public lobbying disclosures. One of them, Pam Olson, was the top Treasury tax official in the George W. Bush administration. (Morgenstern, the Treasury spokesman, said Harter didn’t meet with PwC while the rules were being written.) This month, the Treasury issued the final version of some of the BEAT regulations. The Organization for International Investment got what it wanted. Helping Foreign Banks One of the most effective campaigns, with the greatest financial consequence, was led by a small group of large foreign banks, including Credit Suisse and Barclays. U.S. regulators require international banks to ensure that their United States divisions are financially equipped to absorb big losses in a crisis. To meet those requirements, foreign banks lend the money to their American outposts. Those loans accrue interest. Under the BEAT, the interest that the American units paid to their European parents would often be taxed. “Foreign banks should not be penalized by the U.S. tax laws for complying” with regulations, said Briget Polichene, chief executive of the Institute of International Bankers, whose members include many of the world’s largest banks. Banks flooded the Treasury Department with lobbyists and letters. Late last year, Harter went to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and told him about the plan to give the banks a break. Mnuchin — a longtime banking executive before joining the Trump administration — signed off on the new exemptions, according to a person familiar with the matter. A few months later, the tax-policy office handed another victory to the foreign banks, ruling that an even wider range of bank payments would be exempted. Among the lobbyists who successfully pushed the banks’ case in private meetings with senior Treasury officials was Erika Nijenhuis of the law firm Cleary Gottlieb. Her client was the Institute of International Bankers. In September 2019, Nijenhuis took off her lobbying hat and joined the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which was still writing the rules governing the tax law. Some tax experts said that the Treasury had no legal authority to exempt the bank payments from the BEAT; only Congress had that power. The Trump administration created the exception “out of whole cloth,” said Wells, the University of Houston professor. Even inside the Treasury, the ruling was controversial. Some officials told Harter — the senior official in charge of the international rules — that the department lacked the power, according to people familiar with the discussions. Harter dismissed the objections. Officials at the Joint Committee on Taxation have calculated that the exemptions for international banks could reduce by up to $50 billion the revenue raised by the BEAT. Overall, the BEAT is likely to collect “a small fraction” of the $150 billion of new tax revenue that was originally projected by Congress, said Thomas Horst, who advises companies on their overseas tax arrangements. He came to that conclusion after reviewing the tax disclosures in more than 140 annual reports filed by multinationals. Morgenstern, the Treasury spokesman, said: “We thoroughly reviewed these issues internally and are fully comfortable that we have the legal authority for the conclusions reached in these regulations.” He said Nijenhuis was not involved in crafting the BEAT rules. He also said the Treasury decided that changing the rules for foreign banks was appropriate. “We were responsive to job creators,” he said. Heading to the Hill The lobbying surrounding the GILTI was equally intense — and, once again, large companies won valuable concessions. Back in 2017, Republicans said the GILTI was meant to prevent companies from avoiding American taxes by moving their intellectual property overseas. In the pharmaceutical and tech industries in particular, profits are often tied to patents. Companies had sold the rights to their patents to subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. The companies then imposed steep licensing fees on their American units. The sleight-of-hand transactions reduced profits in the United States and left them in places like Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands. But after the law was enacted, large multinationals in industries like consumer products discovered that the GILTI tax applied to them, too. That threatened to cut into their windfalls from the corporate tax rate’s falling to 21% from 35%. Lobbyists for Procter & Gamble and other companies turned to lawmakers for help. They asked members of the Senate Finance Committee to tell Treasury officials that they hadn’t intended the GILTI to affect their industries. It was a simple but powerful strategy: Because the Treasury was required to consider congressional intent when writing the tax rules, such explanations could sway the outcome. Several senators then met with Mnuchin to discuss the rules. One lobbyist, Michael Caballero, had been a senior Treasury official in the Obama administration. His clients included Credit Suisse and industrial conglomerate United Technologies. He met repeatedly with Treasury and White House officials and pushed them to modify the rules so that big companies hit by the GILTI wouldn’t lose certain tax deductions. In essence, the “high-tax exception” that Caballero was proposing would allow companies to deduct expenses that they incurred in their overseas operations from their American profits — lowering their U.S. tax bills. Other companies jumped on the bandwagon. News Corp., Liberty Mutual, Anheuser-Busch, Comcast and P&G wrote letters or dispatched lobbyists to argue for the high-tax exception. After months of meetings with lobbyists, the Treasury announced in June 2019 that it was creating a version of the exception that the companies had sought. An Implied Threat Two years after the tax cuts became law, their impact is becoming clear. Companies continue to shift hundreds of billions of dollars to overseas tax havens, ensuring that huge sums of corporate profits remain out of reach of the U.S. government. The Internal Revenue Service is collecting tens of billions of dollars less in corporate taxes than Congress projected, inflating the tax law’s 13-figure price tag. This month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development calculated that the United States in 2018 experienced the largest drop in tax revenue of any of the group’s 36 member countries. The United States also had by far the largest budget deficit of any of those countries. In the coming days, the Treasury is likely to complete its last round of rules carrying out the tax cuts. Big companies have spent this fall trying to win more. In September, Chris D. Trunck, the vice president for tax at Owens Corning, the maker of insulation and roofing materials, wrote to the IRS. He pushed the Treasury to tinker with the GILTI rules in a way that would preserve hundreds of millions of dollars of tax benefits that Owens Corning had accumulated from settling claims that it poisoned employees and others with asbestos. The same month, underwear manufacturer Hanes sent its own letter to Mnuchin. The letter, from Bryant Purvis, Hanes’ vice president of global tax, urged Mnuchin to broaden the high-tax exception so that more companies could take advantage of it. Otherwise, Purvis warned, “the GILTI regime will become an impediment to U.S. companies and their ability to not only compete globally as a general matter, but also their ability to remain U.S.-headquartered if they are to maintain the overall fiscal health of their business.” The implied threat was clear: If the Treasury didn’t further chip away at the new tax, companies like Hanes, based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, might have no choice but to move their headquarters overseas. https://www.yahoo.com/news/big-companies-won-tax-breaks-193939309.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9maW5hbmNlLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9wb3J0Zm9saW8vcGZfMS92aWV3L3YxP2d1Y2VfcmVmZXJyZXI9YUhSMGNITTZMeTltYVc1aGJtTmxMbmxoYUc5dkxtTnZiUzl3YjNKMFptOXNhVzh2Y0daZk1TOTJhV1YzJmd1Y2VfcmVmZXJyZXJfc2lnPUFRQUFBQ0lUQzBsNTVFVEFYamV5cjFKZ2hnRTBTQ1NlbE5kR0FKdUVLeXZxZVNJSzI4QkFyc0dtMUE0R1BRRDBMNW52bDEyTDhhTGZZUW03TllSQVlfT3JzX3hGeFpBNnBxSHl3LWNXU3haT3BUSVVVXzQ4UkJlbFdqN0pPeUFIdkpJUkx2TllBVTZUeS11OVAyT1F5YThVbnJhLXhETkVkNWJXSkdyLURBb042S2hzJl9ndWNfY29uc2VudF9za2lwPTE1Nzc3NDgyOTM&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAL0_BwfOB3YGI-nVG-7uVrCx0jHcMcIHZN8j_KyUuTDLMtWaO8Yizhu0uSjDrokQSBeIBf5rGRYIqi5acCra961PKL-MzLbn1c__AnT3Xz3lnG_3dXMavoQIWfbqNbS_bycSIklfRYv0wbOmetARxtYQ8d89eScKGZjiPYQukS0n The swamp is alive and well. B/A
  8. Here’s a quick recap of the 10 strongest currencies in the world: Kuwaiti Dinar – (1 KWD = 3.29 USD) Bahraini Dinar – (1 BHD = 2.65 USD) Omani Rial – (1 OMR = 2.60 USD) Jordanian Dinar – (1 JOD = 1.41 USD) Pound Stirling – (1 GBP = 1.26 USD) Gibraltar Pound – (1 GIP = 1.23 USD) Cayman Islands Dollar – (1 KYD = 1.20 USD) Euro – (1 EURO = 1.10 USD) Swiss Franc – (1 CHF = 1.01 USD) US Dollar https://wealthygorilla.com/strongest-currencies-world/ B/A
  9. Thanks LGD... Marksa has suggested I need to use the report this post option... I have never done that in the 10 years I've been here, but maybe I should. Like the above post where Greg calls me Antifa... That is not true and his attempt at baiting me. But I digress, I will hold back on my comments and simply enjoy watching the banter B/A.
  10. Thanks Pitcher.. I know we don't agree on politics and that's ok. I respect your dignity and like you I don't give rubies... Sometimes I do give the confused look. B/A
  11. Bumper I was talking to LGD because he always calls people names and uses derogatory language. I was pointing out to him that I was warned for the term "coward" but no one else gets warned for the personal attacks I see on myself and other posters. I was talking about the above post by Kevin where he went off. Personally I don't mind if people get ugly, we all lose our tempers from time to time. I have never cried to moderators and asked for them to warn anyone after countless attacks, misstatements or lies, I am only asking that if people are going to be held accountable for their statements, it should be fair and balanced... B/A
  12. Senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump detailed President Donald Trump's administration at a tense time for the president in an interview with CBS "Face the Nation." Trump said the president and his base were feeling "energized" in the wake of the impeachment vote, while the president lashed out at Democratic lawmakers and critics. The adviser also said she hasn't yet decided on continuing to serve in her father's administration if he wins the 2020 presidential election. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump detailed her perspective from inside her father President Donald Trump's administration amid ongoing concerns including impeachment and the 2020 presidential election. Trump, who has appeared at the front lines of the administration since her father took office, said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that she wasn't decided on continuing to serve as an adviser to her father if he wins the 2020 presidential election. In an interview snippet posted ahead of Trump's scheduled appearance on the show this Sunday, she discussed her role and possible future ambitions, telling host Margaret Brennan that if the president won re-election, her decision to continue with the administration would be made with her young children in mind. "I am driven, first and foremost, by my kids and their happiness, so that is always going to be my top priority and my decisions will always be flexible enough to ensure that their needs are being considered," Trump told Brennan. "They will really drive that answer for me." The adviser and her husband and fellow administration figure, Jared Kushner, share three children: eight-year-old Arabella, six-year-old Joseph, and three-year-old Theodore. Trump said she was motivated to come to Washington for "impact," and delivering on policies for "forgotten men and women" she had met while traveling and campaigning in the two years since the 2016 election. Brennan asked if Trump had her own ambitions for running for office, Trump said she finds "policy" more interesting than "politics," and her experience with changing policies regarding issues like criminal justice and childcare has been "energizing." "The day I walk into the West Wing and I don't feel a shiver up my spine is the day I've been here too long," Trump said. "I still every day feel a tremendous humbling and sense of privilege that I'm able to do the work that I came to Washington to do and the president empowered me [to do]." The first daughter has come under scrutiny before for her apparent complicity with some of the president's most hawkish and controversial policies, including the administration's family-separation immigration policy. She reportedly opposed the policy behind closed doors, but only publicly opposed it after the president signed an executive order to kill the policy. She later told ABC News in February that it is not her job "to share my viewpoint when they diverge." Trump told Brennan that she has no role in advising the president on matters related to his recent impeachment and leaves it to the White House lawyers. According to a transcript of the interview, when Brennan pressed for her "personal opinion" on Rudy Giuliani, the president's lead attorney, Trump said she only knew him "in a very different context" as a heroic figure in New York City after September 11, 2001. "He's smart and thoughtful and a real warrior and was a great mayor," Trump said. Trump also said that in the wake of a successful impeachment vote by House lawmakers, the president was "energized, as are 63 million plus voters who elected him to office," but said his lashing out at lawmakers and critics was a reflection of his being "angry at a process that is unjust." https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-said-she-wasnt-163233008.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9maW5hbmNlLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9wb3J0Zm9saW8vcGZfMS92aWV3L3YxP2d1Y2NvdW50ZXI9MSZndWNlX3JlZmVycmVyPWFIUjBjSE02THk5bWFXNWhibU5sTG5saGFHOXZMbU52YlM5d2IzSjBabTlzYVc4dmNHWmZNUzkyYVdWMyZndWNlX3JlZmVycmVyX3NpZz1BUUFBQUNJVEMwbDU1RVRBWGpleXIxSmdoZ0UwU0NTZWxOZEdBSnVFS3l2cWVTSUsyOEJBcnNHbTFBNEdQUUQwTDVudmwxMkw4YUxmWVFtN05ZUkFZX09yc194RnhaQTZwcUh5dy1jV1N4Wk9wVElVVV80OFJCZWxXajdKT3lBSHZKSVJMdk5ZQVU2VHktdTlQMk9ReWE4VW5yYS14RE5FZDViV0pHci1EQW9ONktocw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALet_GbwQbE2suRoWx0Yew6G_z7SHN8XzC-9wYDDYA1_8H8xkbpuiTP2dh8OC9QDDEfMCRmpM-gNuDmf2qtroV0e7pxPRmzGLEM1Kkajre9R4xRoWSehNnJ71WdKpTaP-4p6nWrfxkM48n3RuRZtU8P7315lfIXoLX73S2cEo8u4 Sorry Ivanka, I'm doubting the new president will offer. B/A
  13. Exactly.... Take our president for example, all he does is call people names, he can't state the truth or they will LOCK HIM UP! B/A
  14. Bumper told me I was warned for the word "coward" Look at the pathetic language Kev just used on me.... Go warn him or stop calling yourself a moderator and go with poser. B/A
  15. Such language Kev... I got warned for using the word "coward"... Be careful... One of the buttercup, snowflakes will cry to an administrator.... B/A
  16. This a third party site that sell birth certificates... Absolutely no data there. Nothing here about population, food stamps, criminals, gangs... But a great site to get a loan, or sign up to be a slum lord... This one is great.... However it destroys most of the numbers you posted. Here is a sampling; Federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens more than tripled from 1998 to 2018 (rising 234%), while federal arrests of U.S. citizens rose 10% over the same period (table 4). Federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens increased from 73,022 in 2017 to 125,027 in 2018, a 1-year increase of over 50,000 (table 4). In 2018, non-U.S. citizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests and 25% of all federal property arrests, including 28% of all federal fraud arrests (table 7a). In 2018, 85% of federal arrests of non-U.S. citizens were for immigration offenses, and another 5% of arrests were immigration-related (table 7b). Of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 57% were U.S. citizens and 43% were non-U.S. citizens (table 13). Immigration suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court more than tripled from 1998 to 2018 (table 16). Of non-U.S. citizens prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018, 0.3% were prosecuted for first-time illegal entry; 99.7% were prosecuted for something else (table 14). The five crime types for which non-U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018 were illegal reentry (72% of prosecutions), drugs (13%), fraud (4.5%), alien smuggling (4%), and misuse of visas (2%) (table 14). The five crime types for which U.S. citizens were most likely to be prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2018 were drugs (38% of prosecutions), weapons (21%), fraud (12%), public order (12%), and alien smuggling (6%) (table 14). Also very good info... Foreign-born workers represented 16.1 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2012 In 2012, there were 25 million foreign-born persons age 16 years and older in the U.S. labor force, representing 16.1 percent of the total. About 130 million workers were native born, making up the remaining 83.9 percent of the total U.S. labor force. About 38 percent (9.5 million workers) of the foreign born were from Mexico and Central America, and 28 percent (7 million workers) were from Asia (including the Middle East). The share of foreign–born workers from Europe and the Caribbean was about 10 percent for each. Very interesting statistics on business and personal income by city, county, state and nationally, but nothing on your list is covered. Most of these are very informative thanks for posting. B/A
  17. Trump would put him in a cage for having olive skin and crossing our border... Or maybe he's coming back with Trump's taxes in those suitcases.... B/A
  18. Do you have a source for these numbers? And I don't mean twitter or youtube. B/A
  19. Thanks Adam... I'm just waiting for those 800#s to go live any minute now!!! LOL B/A
  20. I never saw him solo, but did see The Police in 1977 or was it 78? LOL..... Out of pluses... Thanks for posting B/A
  21. But Rudy is a Jew... They believe Jesus is not the savior... So what gives? B/A
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.