Trump proposals and what actually gets accomplished (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

I don’t think this fits into any current thread - it’s not an appointment or anything. Maybe a thread to keep track of his proposals and whether they are implemented?

 

[TampaJoe]

This is misinformation. Obama pushed forward rules that also impacted pro-Obama and pro-liberal organizations. They were hit with the same reviews as the Tea Party organizations. The misinformation machine just cherry picked organizations to make it seem like political retribution knowing people wouldn’t bother to learn the facts because, Internet.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obama-pitches-new-rules-for-political-nonprofits-100401

I’m also not sure I have an issue with what Trump wants to do yet. The “non-profit” world is a cash cow. I work with some of these folks and the amount of fraud and abuse is absolutely staggering. I’d have to see how this plays out before forming an opinion, but I’ll say something needs to be done to reform how non-profits work and how much of their revenue can go to “administrative” expenses and to line the pocket of those that turn around and give them government grants which they use to pay themselves multi million dollar salaries and benefit packages.

I watched the hearings back in the day, if liberal leaning organizations were affected, they never appeared as witnesses in those hearings. Not one as I recall.

Misinformation cuts both ways. I know people who were guilty of nothing else that being a member of one of those groups who had the IRS audit their personal returns and their business returns. Further OSHA all the sudden took an interest in the businesses. Say what you want but that is abusive behavior. Nothing is more chilling to speech that getting targeted by government agencies.

So no. I’m not for that kind of crap from either party for any reason. It is an abuse of power and as totalitarian as it gets. It’s election interference just as bad as anything the Russians can do. Maybe worse because it comes from US Government officials who should know better.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Translation: when provided with an actual link bout actual details of how your view of this was wrongly shaped by bad information you will choose to continue to believe what you want to believe. I love me some confirmation bias.

I still will be in a wait and see mode on what Trump does. I think he’s the most despicable man to occupy the Presidency since Woodrow Wilson, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The non profit laws are being abused and if he does something that curbs that I’m all for it. Obama tried and the politics around it prevented him because people like you were sold a bill of good that it was political retribution. At some point this problem really needs to be addressed.

 

[J-DONK]

I watched the hearings back in the day, if liberal leaning organizations were affected, they never appeared as witnesses in those hearings. Not one as I recall.

Misinformation cuts both ways. I know people who were guilty of nothing else that being a member of one of those groups who had the IRS audit their personal returns and their business returns. Further OSHA all the sudden took an interest in the businesses. Say what you want but that is abusive behavior. Nothing is more chilling to speech that getting targeted by government agencies.

So no. I’m not for that kind of crap from either party for any reason. It is an abuse of power and as totalitarian as it gets. It’s election interference just as bad as anything the Russians can do. Maybe worse because it comes from US Government officials who should know better.

For anyone who reads this response, and think its' true.

The DOJ, FBI, and multiple congressional hearings could never find a delibrate political motivated orders from IRS for this.

You would read this comment and think there was a political witchhunt. That was investigated mutliple times, and never proven.

What did happen was a lot of mismanagement with the new rules, and multiple senior officals in the IRS resigned over it.

 

[TampaJoe]

Translation: when provided with an actual link bout actual details of how your view of this was wrongly shaped by bad information you will choose to continue to believe what you want to believe. I love me some confirmation bias.

I still will be in a wait and see mode on what Trump does. I think he’s the most despicable man to occupy the Presidency since Woodrow Wilson, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The non profit laws are being abused and if he does something that curbs that I’m all for it. Obama tried and the politics around it prevented him because people like you were sold a bill of good that it was political retribution. At some point this problem really needs to be addressed.

I have no issue with reforms in this area as long as they are evenly and fairly applied regardless of party affiliation. I do not believe that was the case in the aforementioned example.

I believe the IRS later apologized for the treatment and paid a settlement. Your link also mentions that the IRS commissioner was fired and other people were forced to leave the IRS. Why would that be necessary if everything was handled properly.

All that said, the central point I think we both can agree upon is that government institutions should not be used as political tools by either party. They should be impartial in all respects.

 

[Lapaz]

Translation: when provided with an actual link bout actual details of how your view of this was wrongly shaped by bad information you will choose to continue to believe what you want to believe. I love me some confirmation bias.

I still will be in a wait and see mode on what Trump does. I think he’s the most despicable man to occupy the Presidency since Woodrow Wilson, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The non profit laws are being abused and if he does something that curbs that I’m all for it. Obama tried and the politics around it prevented him because people like you were sold a bill of good that it was political retribution. At some point this problem really needs to be addressed.

The problem is that even if non-profits need to be reformed, putting a tool in the hands in an unscrupulous person like Trump, is a bad idea. Any such tool should be delayed until someone with scruples is in charge. Since Trump told us he plans to go after the enemy within, you shouldn't give him weapons to aid his quest.

 

[Lapaz]

I have no issue with reforms in this area as long as they are evenly and fairly applied regardless of party affiliation. I do not believe that was the case in the aforementioned example.

I believe the IRS later apologized for the treatment and paid a settlement. Your link also mentions that the IRS commissioner was fired and other people were forced to leave the IRS. Why would that be necessary if everything was handled properly.

All that said, the central point I think we both can agree upon is that government institutions should not be used as political tools by either party. They should be impartial in all respects.

The Obama administration's IRS messed up, but they were trying to remove non-profit political organizations. It was the right thing to do, but implemented poorly. They created a be-on-the-look out (BOLO) listing to identify such organizations. Here is an excerpt from the report:

"Results of Review In summary, we found that all three allegations were substantiated. The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Because of ineffective management by IRS officials: 1) inappropriate criteria were developed and stayed in place for a total of more than 18 months, 2) there were substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) unnecessary information requests were issued to the organizations.

Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Potential Political Cases The IRS developed and began using criteria to identify tax-exempt applications for review by a team of specialists that inappropriately identified specific groups applying for tax-exempt status based on their names or policy positions, instead of developing

• In early Calendar Year 2010, according to an IRS Determinations Unit specialist, the IRS began searching for applications with “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12” in the organization’s name as well as other “political-sounding” names (hereinafter referred to as potential political cases).
• In May 2010, a Determinations Unit specialist and group manager began developing a spreadsheet that would become known as the “Be On the Look Out” listing (hereinafter referred to as the “BOLO” listing), which included the emerging issue of Tea Party applications.
• In June 2010, Determinations Unit managers and specialists began training Determinations Unit specialists on issues to be aware of, including Tea Party cases.
• By July 2010, Determinations Unit management stated that it had requested its specialists to be on the lookout for Tea Party applications. "

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2021-11/congress_05212013.pdf

In any event, Obama fired those people. Trump will probably promote and reward any such actions if it hurts his enemies. That power is far more dangerous in Trump's hands.

 

[Lapaz]

I'm concerned that the federal government's major consumer agencies will stop working effectively. If they do, perhaps states will move to establish their own agencies, but it would be very expensive for every state to have its own agencies. The duplication would also be very wasteful. One possible solution that occurs to me is for states to establish regional or multi-region agencies. Maybe Western and Northeastern blue states could form their versions of the FDA, CDC, USDA, Dept of Educ, EPA, and HHS. If red states realize that the Feds no longer protect their citizens, then they may want their services, and then they could join the band. It would still be expensive for the blue states to do this, since they still pay federal taxes, which predominantly goes to red states, but at least the sane states would not be completely unserved. Another option is to turn to Canada's agencies for some services. States could require approvals from Canada's agencies for some things. This will further the disintegration of the United States, but that seems almost inevitable.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm concerned that the federal government's major consumer agencies will stop working effectively. If they do, perhaps states will move to establish their own agencies, but it would be very expensive for every state to have its own agencies. The duplication would also be very wasteful. One possible solution that occurs to me is for states to establish regional or multi-region agencies. Maybe Western and Northeastern blue states could form their versions of the FDA, CDC, USDA, Dept of Educ, EPA, and HHS. If red states realize that the Feds no longer protect their citizens, then they may want their services, and then they could join the band. It would still be expensive for the blue states to do this, since they still pay federal taxes, which predominantly goes to red states, but at least the sane states would not be completely unserved. Another option is to turn to Canada's agencies for some services. States could require approvals from Canada's agencies for some things. This will further the disintegration of the United States, but that seems almost inevitable.

Those kinds of things are going to be interesting - but part of the problem is going to be jurisdictional. The US federal system has a two-tiered jurisdictional system, federal and state. The feds have limited jurisdiction but broad power within those areas, whereas states have broad jurisdiction within their states and virtually no power elsewhere. I suppose that states could establish multi-state agencies but each state would have to have it's own agency and act only within its state - although some cross-deputization may be possible in some areas, it would be complicated and require substantial work on legal compliance. The last thing you want to do is setup and fund activities that don't actually have jurisdiction to do what they're trying to do.

 

[superchuck500]

One of the most frustrating things about these bozo appointments with their "disruptive agendas" that is not being discussed - and I think there are people in the Senate that should know better - is that where there is a competence or experience gap, the result is compliance risk. And compliance risk is both stupid and massively inefficient.

For example, you take a guy like RFK and make him head of HHS. He's already talking about major reorganizations and terminations within the agency and its program offices - changing their leadership, their activities, their priorities. "From DAY ONE!" he says. But that's not how federal agencies operate - many of those programs, activities, and officials are set by statute or regulation, or are required by funding parameters. Business and authoritarian types think it's all as simple as going in there and turning the place on its head by edict and sheer will . . . but there are special interest groups, watchdog organizations, and the like with their lawyers ready to jump into federal court to get an injunction when these shake-ups aren't done properly.

In other words, you can't eliminate a program that comes from a statute or regulation without first changing the statute or regulation. It can be done when you have control of Congress and regulations are fairly easy to change but it is a process required by law that takes quite a bit of time. And if you don't do it right, you get an injunction from federal court. We saw a lot of this with the first Trump administration and based on these appointments, its going to be worse this time around.

And does anyone really think that this Congress is going to get done all of the statutory work they need to do for Trump's agenda? LOL - they say they are but we just got finished watching the GOP and Mike Johnson lead literally the most ineffective House session since the Civil War, they got almost nothing done, dramatically underperforming the typical bills and measures passed by an average session. And as soon as these programs are set to be eliminated, they're all going to have to have some very serious considerations about what the impact is actually going to be in their constituencies - it's easy to say "well ya'll voted for Trump so this is what you wanted" but when your district's school budget is 75% federally funded and you shut that program down, they're going to call for your head.

I'll believe a lot of this when I see it - but I anticipate that the growing pains these yahoos experience in the form of adverse litigation over their plans and actions is going to be substantial.

 

[Lapaz]

Those kinds of things are going to be interesting - but part of the problem is going to be jurisdictional. The US federal system has a two-tiered jurisdictional system, federal and state. The feds have limited jurisdiction but broad power within those areas, whereas states have broad jurisdiction within their states and virtually no power elsewhere. I suppose that states could establish multi-state agencies but each state would have to have it's own agency and act only within its state - although some cross-deputization may be possible in some areas, it would be complicated and require substantial work on legal compliance. The last thing you want to do is setup and fund activities that don't actually have jurisdiction to do what they're trying to do.

I was thinking less about enforcement, and more about establishing organizations with technical expertise to share and guide. Each state can pass their own laws to do what they will with the information and guidance generated by these multi-state agencies. Nevertheless, I'm sure you're correct that it would be complicated and fraught, but the void that may be created by the Feds will probably demand to be filled. Some of this demand may get filled by commercial interests as well. If the Feds deregulate, it doesn't stop the states from re-regulating/mandating compliance with other organizations to assure their public is served and protected. The question is what other organizations, and how can they be made affordable. One of the problems this will create is the confidence people will have in their food, drugs, sanitation, etc when they cross state lines. Our states will grow increasingly dissimilar, and it will erode the fabric of what binds us.

 

[MT15]

I do not believe that was the case in the aforementioned example.

What would it take to convince you that you were lied to about it?

 

[Neworleansfan]

Trump administration increased tariffs. Biden administration not only left them in place during the worst inflation crisis for a long time, they also added additional tariffs.

While the banks and the automakers got bailed out under the Bush and Obama administrations, millions lost their homes, saw their wages and pensions got cut. Millions more saw their retirement savings got cut in half. Those who were closed to retirement got screwed. For those lucky ones who were still young, it only took a decade plus for them to get to where they were.

 

[B4YOU]

Yes, tariffs act as a regressive tax - which means the impact is relatively worse the lower you go on the economic stratum. They’re also inflationary, which has disparate impact on lower income households.

But this was covered extensively in the campaigns and lower income and blue-collar voters went substantially in favor of Trump - including with significant gains in the minority community. And Trump turnout was high (demographics appear to show that Democratic voter turnout fell from 2020, while Trump voter turnout increased). I don't see how this can equate with the claim that more than half of the population don't give a fork who is in charge, it appears they very clearly do care.

Certainly there's empathy for low-income households that are likely going to see their budget suppressed rather than aided by Trump's policies - and for the ones that didn't vote for him, that's especially difficult. But the data all show that a majority (perhaps even a significant majority) of the demographics associated with lower income supported Trump . . . which means they supported Trump policies. They weren't hidden, they were right there in the wide open the whole time. They chose them.

The lower class needs to keep touching that hot stove until they realize it will keep burning them. Until then.......

 

[Lapaz]

Trump administration increased tariffs. Biden administration not only left them in place during the worst inflation crisis for a long time, they also added additional tariffs.

While the banks and the automakers got bailed out under the Bush and Obama administrations, millions lost their homes, saw their wages and pensions got cut. Millions more saw their retirement savings got cut in half. Those who were closed to retirement got screwed. For those lucky ones who were still young, it only took a decade plus for them to get to where they were.

Biden kept most of Trump’s tariffs, except the ones against Europe, and it has cost us jobs and growth. Trump increased tariffs about 80B and Biden added 18B, but Trump has proposed nearly 600B more. That would be crippling. It is terrible policy.

Tariff Tracker: Tracking the Economic Impact of Tariffs

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place

taxfoundation.org

 

[Optimus Prime]

……Last week in Washington D.C, the group marked the book’s publication with a cocktail party where one Heritage official, with “a nervous laugh,” told Politico’s Playbook: “We’re so back.”

At the event attended by Playbook, Roberts gave remarks to the room where he sounded “pretty optimistic” about the likelihood of Project 2025’s proposals coming to pass.

A Heritage official told the column that the think tank has prepared a list of 20,000 names who could fill jobs in Trump’s second administration.

“I happen to know a 922-page book where there’s a perfect plan for doing that,” Roberts said, according to Playbook. “And I happen to work with the people who are perfect to implement it.”……

‘We’re so back’: How the Heritage Foundation is creeping back into Trump’s sphere

After the Democrats hit Project 2025 hard in campaign ads in the summer, the think tank had no choice but to quietly back away

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Optimus Prime]

Walmart warns it will have to raise prices if Trump’s tariffs are enacted

Trump claimed tariffs are the ‘greatest thing ever invented’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[CoolBrees]

I am hoping everyone of his economic policies is enacted

 

[fooferdoggie]

I am hoping everyone of his economic policies is enacted

Russia is that you?