The three batches of government are equal, none of them have ultimate authority. Unfortunately congress has abdicated its power and is letting the executive branch do what it wants with no oversight.
Congress isn't "abdicating" its power when it doesn't pass laws to limit the President. Congress isn't "required" to stop every President.
They are, however, required to uphold the Constitution. The majority have clarified that it is not in their interest to do so.
It’s only logical right? Heck, back in 1995, nancy pelosi of all people was saying the exact same stuff trump is saying about the need for tariffs since we are being tariffed to death by everyone else. (I posted the video a few posts back) It’s necessary in order to level the playing field. The only thing trump is doing wrong is not being on the democrat side.
Your trade deficit with the EU is 3% which would have been a surplus if Boeing had shipped on time. And yet you're going to war. Agriculture is less than 5% of your exports. Oil is 7-8%. Arms: 10%. Services: 33%. You should be worried about your main exports and let peanuts be peanuts.
On arms sourcing is changing. "It turns out that abandoning allies and tossing out security guarantees is bad for business.". There won't be any tariffs. We're simply changing our buying patterns. Services however will be directly hit by tariffs from EU.
China placing a 34% tariff takes care of the rest. It will take years before US can manufacture what China is doing. You will pay 34% extra at home causing inflation. And your exports will fail due to their tariff making it easier for Brazil and EU to get your export customers. When finally you start manufacturing it will be more expensive (unless those $3/hour wages are attractive) and your export customers will no longer be yours. How will that make you great?
Both parties will have to offer more compelling candidates if they want mainstream America to vote for non-Trump policies. We can't blame Trump for being Trump.
lwr32 said: And how often was Obama on the golf course?
Obama played golf 333 times during his 8 years, which is more than Trump. Trump's golf tally is harder to count, because one of his homes is on a golf course, and he's not always playing golf when he's at that home.
That’s 333 ROUNDS of golf.
Tr*mp spent 293 days playing golf during his first term — in half the time.
The three batches of government are equal, none of them have ultimate authority. Unfortunately congress has abdicated its power and is letting the executive branch do what it wants with no oversight.
Congress isn't "abdicating" its power when it doesn't pass laws to limit the President. Congress isn't "required" to stop every President.
By the way, Congress has seven oversight committees which are working, and half the members on those committees belong to your favourite political party, whatever that may be.
Cool straw man fallacy there. The problem is, I never said Congress was abdicating its power when it doesn't pass laws to limit the president, nor did I say Congress isn't required to stop every president. Cult members just love to make things up rather than engage in real conversation.
Everyone in Congress took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. They are given the power to make legislation, do appropriations, and oversee. The first thing on that list they are just too incompetent to do. They turned the second over to the executive branch, which is a violation of the Constitution. And yeah, they have oversight committees, but they are functionally useless. Currently, the executive branch is violating laws and the Constitution in several ways. You don't have to look any further for the administration's losing record in the courts. So Congress knows the executive branch is in violation of the law, and what have they done? Have they done hearings? Nope, instead, they have threatened to impeach anyone in the Judicial branch that does their job.
So, yes, Congress has abdicated its power.
I don't have a favorite party, and this isn't a partisan issue. But I don't expect anyone in the cult to understand that. Y'all are just accepting whatever it is that Dear Leader says.
lwr32 said: And how often was Obama on the golf course?
Obama played golf 333 times during his 8 years, which is more than Trump. Trump's golf tally is harder to count, because one of his homes is on a golf course, and he's not always playing golf when he's at that home.
We know how much Obama played golf because the administration was transparent. We don't don show much Trump paid golf because the administration is not transparent. Also, in his first term he spent 102 million on golf. At the time was just 12 million under what Obama spent on golf for his two terms. So far in this term he has spend another 18 million. So he may or may not have played as much golf as Obama but he has spent more on golf and the personally profits from the money the government spends on his golfing. But he is totally about trying to cut government spending.
The governor of California is going to call Trump’s bluff by ignoring the federal tariff and negotiate directly with other countries on tariffs. Seems like a decent strategy considering that the Trump tariffs are entirely dependent on the claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives the president the power to levy tariffs. In other words, the White House is likely violating the law and California is going to respond in kind.
Not an option, according to the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly says, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
I strongly recommend reading the U.S. Constitution. Frequently. You can't preserve, protect, or defend, something you don't know.
LOL...are you aware of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? That was a bill that passed Congress and was signed by Hoover. Notice that it's CONGRESS that is levying the tariffs and not Herbert Hoover. Which means Trump doesn't have the power to levy tariffs under the Constitution either. The current administration is trying to claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives him the power to do it himself. But that is obvious b.s. considering Trump wants to make the $2 trillion tax cut from 2017 permanent + add trillions more in new tax cuts. All of that will explode the national debt to new heights.
Basically CA is saying "if you're going to pretend to have the authority to negotiate tariffs by yourself then we're going to pretend that we can do that as well".
Tax cuts mean more money in our pockets to spend, which in turn means more sales tax we’re paying. Where does the sales tax go?
First off, to answer your question, and seriously, how do you not already know the answer to that? Sales taxes go to the states and local jurisdictions, not the federal government. So your implication that if we cut taxes, the money will just get taxed anyway and end up back with the federal government is just incorrect.
You are also incorrect about the money from tax cuts going into the economy via spending. I make more than I spend. If I were to get a tax cut, 100% of the money would go into savings. I am by no means alone in that, and given that tax cuts tend to prioritize people who may way more than I do, your claim that tax cuts just get spent and taxed is just incorrect.
9secondkox2 said: It’s only logical right? Heck, back in 1995, nancy pelosi of all people was saying the exact same stuff trump is saying about the need for tariffs since we are being tariffed to death by everyone else.
A. Pelosi's comments were entirely specific to China alone. That isn't "the exact same stuff". B. Trump already tried agricultural tariffs with China in his 1st administration. Result = $28 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts to farmers. C. Trump backed out of the TPP with China in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better. D. Trump back out of NAFTA with Canada/Mexico in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better. E. Trump claimed that trade agreements he made with China/Mexico/Canada in his 1st term constituted an economic emergency in his 2nd term. F. The grade that Trump gets for his knowledge of trade/tariffs.
lwr32 said: And how often was Obama on the golf course?
Obama played golf 333 times during his 8 years, which is more than Trump. Trump's golf tally is harder to count, because one of his homes is on a golf course, and he's not always playing golf when he's at that home.
We know how much Obama played golf because the administration was transparent. We don't don show much Trump paid golf because the administration is not transparent. Also, in his first term he spent 102 million on golf. At the time was just 12 million under what Obama spent on golf for his two terms. So far in this term he has spend another 18 million. So he may or may not have played as much golf as Obama but he has spent more on golf and the personally profits from the money the government spends on his golfing. But he is totally about trying to cut government spending.
lwr32 said: Tax cuts mean more money in our pockets to spend, which in turn means more sales tax we’re paying. Where does the sales tax go?
Tax cuts are a statistically weak form of stimulus. The CBO has decades of statistics on that. Every dollar that is dedicated to the cut will only result in a percentage of a dollar spent back into the economy due to people saving part of the cut. The percentage that is spent into the economy and not saved gets a lot smaller when the cut goes to people who are wealthy or corporations.
Direct spending programs are statistically much stronger in terms of stimulus. Every dollar dedicated to direct spending WILL be spent into the economy. Things like infrastructure and federal jobs typically return more than one dollar of economic stimulus. People like to talk about China all the time...well, China focused on direct spending and not tax cuts. That's how they built their economy. They constantly plowed money into infrastructure over the last few decades and look where it got them.
lwr32 said: And how often was Obama on the golf course?
Obama played golf 333 times during his 8 years, which is more than Trump. Trump's golf tally is harder to count, because one of his homes is on a golf course, and he's not always playing golf when he's at that home.
We know how much Obama played golf because the administration was transparent. We don't don show much Trump paid golf because the administration is not transparent. Also, in his first term he spent 102 million on golf. At the time was just 12 million under what Obama spent on golf for his two terms. So far in this term he has spend another 18 million. So he may or may not have played as much golf as Obama but he has spent more on golf and the personally profits from the money the government spends on his golfing. But he is totally about trying to cut government spending.
lwr32 said: And how often was Obama on the golf course?
Obama played golf 333 times during his 8 years, which is more than Trump. Trump's golf tally is harder to count, because one of his homes is on a golf course, and he's not always playing golf when he's at that home.
We know how much Obama played golf because the administration was transparent. We don't don show much Trump paid golf because the administration is not transparent. Also, in his first term he spent 102 million on golf. At the time was just 12 million under what Obama spent on golf for his two terms. So far in this term he has spend another 18 million. So he may or may not have played as much golf as Obama but he has spent more on golf and the personally profits from the money the government spends on his golfing. But he is totally about trying to cut government spending.
Isn't it a lot better that your presidents play as much golf as possible - at least they are only messing up the green rather than the whole world
Just FYI - As far as I recollect, @Spheric is from Europe, not USA. @22july2013 is from Canada (for sure) and @Stabitha_Christie is from USA (I am assuming based on post history) . So you have to be careful in making assumptions while posting in a forum like AppleInsider.
The governor of California is going to call Trump’s bluff by ignoring the federal tariff and negotiate directly with other countries on tariffs. Seems like a decent strategy considering that the Trump tariffs are entirely dependent on the claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives the president the power to levy tariffs. In other words, the White House is likely violating the law and California is going to respond in kind.
Not an option, according to the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly says, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
I strongly recommend reading the U.S. Constitution. Frequently. You can't preserve, protect, or defend, something you don't know.
LOL...are you aware of the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? That was a bill that passed Congress and was signed by Hoover. Notice that it's CONGRESS that is levying the tariffs and not Herbert Hoover. Which means Trump doesn't have the power to levy tariffs under the Constitution either. The current administration is trying to claim that the national debt has created a national emergency that gives him the power to do it himself. But that is obvious b.s. considering Trump wants to make the $2 trillion tax cut from 2017 permanent + add trillions more in new tax cuts. All of that will explode the national debt to new heights.
Basically CA is saying "if you're going to pretend to have the authority to negotiate tariffs by yourself then we're going to pretend that we can do that as well".
Tax cuts mean more money in our pockets to spend, which in turn means more sales tax we’re paying. Where does the sales tax go?
First off, to answer your question, and seriously, how do you not already know the answer to that? Sales taxes go to the states and local jurisdictions, not the federal government. So your implication that if we cut taxes, the money will just get taxed anyway and end up back with the federal government is just incorrect.
You are also incorrect about the money from tax cuts going into the economy via spending. I make more than I spend. If I were to get a tax cut, 100% of the money would go into savings. I am by no means alone in that, and given that tax cuts tend to prioritize people who may way more than I do, your claim that tax cuts just get spent and taxed is just incorrect.
Agreed. You could have also added that sales taxes are, always have been, and always will be a regressive form of taxation, which means consumers with lower incomes pay a higher proportion of their income to sales taxes compared to higher income individuals.
I’ve always been reluctant to comment about politically oriented topics on the this forum. Personally, I believe that politics is a highly transmissible mental health condition, in many ways comparable to a disease. Unfortunately, at the present time the single most consequential thing affecting Apple, the focus of this forum, is the destructive influence that has resulted from politics. The continued profitability of Apple at the present and long term is more affected by politics than how quickly Apple can bring the M5 or their next generation modem to market.
Politics has always been a destructive force that impedes human progress by attacking intellectualism, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of self-determination, and humanity itself. These are all things that that have allowed Apple, many other innovators, and humanity itself to grow, progress, and prosper. The challenge isn’t to make America great again, as in some self indulgent and distorted recollection of the past, it’s to make America greater in the future than it is today so we leave our children and grandchildren better off than we are now. To have all these grandpas-in-charge trying to force our children and grandchildren to relive their vision of what was great (in their mind) somewhere in the distant past is fundamentally broken and a consequence of a mental health condition called politics.
What is the ratio of anti- to pro- Trump on this website? About 10-1?
I think it’s more than that. Staff plus majority of the posting membership.
Almost all of the serious tech sites (not actively sponsored by someone with an agenda) around the Internet are easily anti Orange Buffoonery, which is not a surprise, most people in science, medicine, programming, mathematics, finance need to think more clearly and plan long-term in order to make it in school or their careers it’s one of the reasons that Mitt Romney (former Bain CEO) can’t stand Trump and the ratio probably is 2/3 not 10 to 1. The cloudy thinking red areas are reversed the other way 60-40 taking Oklahoma or Tennessee (voting results) as an example.
The three batches of government are equal, none of them have ultimate authority. Unfortunately congress has abdicated its power and is letting the executive branch do what it wants with no oversight.
Congress isn't "abdicating" its power when it doesn't pass laws to limit the President. Congress isn't "required" to stop every President.
They are, however, required to uphold the Constitution. The majority have clarified that it is not in their interest to do so.
Correction the majority of the Republicans made that clarification, but the way the current administration is going they don’t have till September to make up their minds….
lwr32 said: Tax cuts mean more money in our pockets to spend, which in turn means more sales tax we’re paying. Where does the sales tax go?
Tax cuts are a statistically weak form of stimulus. The CBO has decades of statistics on that. Every dollar that is dedicated to the cut will only result in a percentage of a dollar spent back into the economy due to people saving part of the cut. The percentage that is spent into the economy and not saved gets a lot smaller when the cut goes to people who are wealthy or corporations.
Direct spending programs are statistically much stronger in terms of stimulus. Every dollar dedicated to direct spending WILL be spent into the economy. Things like infrastructure and federal jobs typically return more than one dollar of economic stimulus. People like to talk about China all the time...well, China focused on direct spending and not tax cuts. That's how they built their economy. They constantly plowed money into infrastructure over the last few decades and look where it got them.
The Chinese are currently working on abandoned research from Oak Ridge, Tennessee the USA is going to severely regret, not developing that research which the Chinese are using to build even more useful infrastructure.
Comments
Agriculture is less than 5% of your exports. Oil is 7-8%. Arms: 10%. Services: 33%. You should be worried about your main exports and let peanuts be peanuts.
On arms sourcing is changing. "It turns out that abandoning allies and tossing out security guarantees is bad for business.". There won't be any tariffs. We're simply changing our buying patterns. Services however will be directly hit by tariffs from EU.
China placing a 34% tariff takes care of the rest. It will take years before US can manufacture what China is doing. You will pay 34% extra at home causing inflation. And your exports will fail due to their tariff making it easier for Brazil and EU to get your export customers. When finally you start manufacturing it will be more expensive (unless those $3/hour wages are attractive) and your export customers will no longer be yours. How will that make you great?
Both parties will have to offer more compelling candidates if they want mainstream America to vote for non-Trump policies. We can't blame Trump for being Trump.
We know how much Obama played golf because the administration was transparent. We don't don show much Trump paid golf because the administration is not transparent. Also, in his first term he spent 102 million on golf. At the time was just 12 million under what Obama spent on golf for his two terms. So far in this term he has spend another 18 million. So he may or may not have played as much golf as Obama but he has spent more on golf and the personally profits from the money the government spends on his golfing. But he is totally about trying to cut government spending.
First off, to answer your question, and seriously, how do you not already know the answer to that? Sales taxes go to the states and local jurisdictions, not the federal government. So your implication that if we cut taxes, the money will just get taxed anyway and end up back with the federal government is just incorrect.
B. Trump already tried agricultural tariffs with China in his 1st administration. Result = $28 billion in taxpayer funded bailouts to farmers.
C. Trump backed out of the TPP with China in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better.
D. Trump back out of NAFTA with Canada/Mexico in his 1st administration and negotiated a new trade agreement that he claimed was better.
E. Trump claimed that trade agreements he made with China/Mexico/Canada in his 1st term constituted an economic emergency in his 2nd term.
F. The grade that Trump gets for his knowledge of trade/tariffs.
Direct spending programs are statistically much stronger in terms of stimulus. Every dollar dedicated to direct spending WILL be spent into the economy. Things like infrastructure and federal jobs typically return more than one dollar of economic stimulus. People like to talk about China all the time...well, China focused on direct spending and not tax cuts. That's how they built their economy. They constantly plowed money into infrastructure over the last few decades and look where it got them.
I’ve always been reluctant to comment about politically oriented topics on the this forum. Personally, I believe that politics is a highly transmissible mental health condition, in many ways comparable to a disease. Unfortunately, at the present time the single most consequential thing affecting Apple, the focus of this forum, is the destructive influence that has resulted from politics. The continued profitability of Apple at the present and long term is more affected by politics than how quickly Apple can bring the M5 or their next generation modem to market.
Politics has always been a destructive force that impedes human progress by attacking intellectualism, freedom of belief, freedom of thought, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of self-determination, and humanity itself. These are all things that that have allowed Apple, many other innovators, and humanity itself to grow, progress, and prosper. The challenge isn’t to make America great again, as in some self indulgent and distorted recollection of the past, it’s to make America greater in the future than it is today so we leave our children and grandchildren better off than we are now. To have all these grandpas-in-charge trying to force our children and grandchildren to relive their vision of what was great (in their mind) somewhere in the distant past is fundamentally broken and a consequence of a mental health condition called politics.