• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

It’ll be gold. He can’t resist gold. Golden phone, golden immigrant card, golden dome, golden shower … and it goes on.

In other news, the “big beautiful bill” has passed the senate.
www.bbc.com

Senate Republicans narrowly pass Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill

Vice-President JD Vance casts the tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of intense debate, sending the bill back to the House.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

So the US is on the road to this
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lsp64jee722u
 
McG said:
It’ll be gold. He can’t resist gold. Golden phone, golden immigrant card, golden dome, golden shower … and it goes on.

In other news, the “big beautiful bill” has passed the senate.
www.bbc.com

Senate Republicans narrowly pass Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill

Vice-President JD Vance casts the tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of intense debate, sending the bill back to the House.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

So the US is on the road to this
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lsp64jee722u
Click to expand...

U.S. agriculture and construction are starting to feel the labour pinch. It’s not going to get better.
 
PrairieFella said:
Nevermind a tax hike for the lowest quintile to fund a tax break for the highest quintile. Love that for them.
Click to expand...
How did you calculate that? I can't find anything that suggests increased tax rates on lower incomes. The TCJA rate changes (see here), which raised no bracket rates and reduced many, are made permanent. Some points summarized here.
 
The latest evidence arrived in the hours before lawmakers finalized their signature legislation. Studying a since-amended version of the Senate bill, experts at the Budget Lab at Yale, a research center, concluded Monday that it would parcel out its benefits disproportionately.

Americans who comprise the bottom fifth of all earners would see their annual after-tax incomes fall on average by 2.3 percent within the next decade, while those at the top would see about a 2.3 percent boost, according to the analysis, which factors in wages earned and government benefits received.

On average, that translates to about $560 in losses for someone who reports little to no income by 2034, and more than $118,000 in gains for someone making over $3 million, the report found. Martha Gimbel, the co-founder of the budget lab, described the Senate measure as “highly regressive.”


Perhaps it would be more accurate if I had said costs rather than taxes. Edited to reflect that.
 
PrairieFella said:
The latest evidence arrived in the hours before lawmakers finalized their signature legislation. Studying a since-amended version of the Senate bill, experts at the Budget Lab at Yale, a research center, concluded Monday that it would parcel out its benefits disproportionately.

Americans who comprise the bottom fifth of all earners would see their annual after-tax incomes fall on average by 2.3 percent within the next decade, while those at the top would see about a 2.3 percent boost, according to the analysis, which factors in wages earned and government benefits received.

On average, that translates to about $560 in losses for someone who reports little to no income by 2034, and more than $118,000 in gains for someone making over $3 million, the report found. Martha Gimbel, the co-founder of the budget lab, described the Senate measure as “highly regressive.”


Perhaps it would be more accurate if I had said costs rather than taxes. Edited to reflect that.
Click to expand...
The article is paywalled, but attributed the hit to lowest income Americans primarily as resulting from cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps).
 
PrairieFella said:
The latest evidence arrived in the hours before lawmakers finalized their signature legislation. Studying a since-amended version of the Senate bill, experts at the Budget Lab at Yale, a research center, concluded Monday that it would parcel out its benefits disproportionately.

Americans who comprise the bottom fifth of all earners would see their annual after-tax incomes fall on average by 2.3 percent within the next decade, while those at the top would see about a 2.3 percent boost, according to the analysis, which factors in wages earned and government benefits received.

On average, that translates to about $560 in losses for someone who reports little to no income by 2034, and more than $118,000 in gains for someone making over $3 million, the report found. Martha Gimbel, the co-founder of the budget lab, described the Senate measure as “highly regressive.”


Perhaps it would be more accurate if I had said costs rather than taxes. Edited to reflect that.
Click to expand...
Okay. That's entirely different. There are different estimates, mostly from left-leaning sources, of how much it might cost low income earners annually, and how much high income earners might gain. They're including other welfare-related schemes affected by the bill.

Go look at the link I provided for the TCJA rate changes. Compare them to Canadian rates, and compare the drops to past rate changes from which Canadians have benefited. Now suppose what happens to low income earners if the rate changes are allowed to expire.

Note that one of the benefits for high income earners is the increased SALT deduction cap. Understand what the deduction does: anyone who wants to talk about "costs" and "benefits" cannot reasonably claim that it does not effectively subsidize taxpayers in high-tax states at the expense of taxpayers in low-tax states, and that it disproportionately benefits higher earners among the earners who qualify. In particular, Democrats really, really love the SALT deduction because "blue" states and cities tend to be high-tax. When they talk about the "rich" benefiting at the expense of the "poor", they are not to be respected.

The averages are meaningless. A big chunk of potential "loss" for low income earners will depend on whether they meet work requirements (mostly documentation) for Medicaid. Those particular losses will not be averaged; people who meet requirements are not going to be subsidizing "the rich".

Finally, and most importantly, what was achievable was constrained by the reconciliation process. For Democrats to preserve some of the things they claim to care about, they would have had to give up some other things. Obviously they felt there was nothing important enough to warrant compromising some of their other interests.
 
brihard said:
U.S. agriculture and construction are starting to feel the labour pinch. It’s not going to get better.
Click to expand...
I watched a video talking about how US grain is having a tough time being sold abroad. Even if the farmers can get it to market many markets don’t want it anymore due to the instability caused by the US government and are turning to other more reliable sources even at a higher cost.
 
dapaterson said:
Time to start deporting American citizens.

Is the water boiling yet?
Click to expand...
That isn't going to go anywhere. Trump can antagonize people all he wants with that threat (which is part of his routine), but it'd get no meaningful support from agencies, Congress, or courts and I doubt he even tries. Mark it down. It'll be significant evidence that the US is not actually in danger of becoming fascist.
 
brihard said:
U.S. agriculture and construction are starting to feel the labour pinch. It’s not going to get better.
Click to expand...
The long view is there will be more legal jobs. The US does need to improve its Guest Worker program though. Legal immigration for a someone born here in Canada going to the US is around 2 years and that is with a sponsor.
 
Brad Sallows said:
That isn't going to go anywhere. Trump can antagonize people all he wants with that threat (which is part of his routine), but it'd get no meaningful support from agencies, Congress, or courts and I doubt he even tries. Mark it down. It'll be significant evidence that the US is not actually in danger of becoming fascist.
Click to expand...
Is nothing that is going on a legitimate warning bell that something wrong is going on? Lots of handwaving on your part frankly.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
The long view is there will be more legal jobs. The US does need to improve its Guest Worker program though. Legal immigration for a someone born here in Canada going to the US is around 2 years and that is with a sponsor.
Click to expand...

And costs will inevitably rise...

www.azpm.org

Report: U.S. families will see a rise in most costs under Trump immigration policies

The report comes as the Trump administration moves to revoke work permits and legal status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants.
www.azpm.org www.azpm.org
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Yes when you have to pay workers all the legal benefits or pay into workers comp/tax/benefits plans, costs go up. Daycare and cleaning services will also become more expensive.
Click to expand...
No such thing as a free lunch. All exploitative immigration schemes need to be shuttered, but humanely. That goes for irregular migration in the US or TFWs here. Noone wins with these schemes.
 
PrairieFella said:
Is nothing that is going on a legitimate warning bell that something wrong is going on? Lots of handwaving on your part frankly.
Click to expand...
DOJ just days ago published a memo to the effect that they will prioritize revoking citizenship (‘denaturalization’) for criminality and misrepresentation. They will also be moving to carry this out via civil proceedings versus criminal, which is a change in how they do this. ThereMs some loose phraseology, however, that leaves open the door to the possibility that they will soon look to further expand situations in which denaturalization shall be sought.


Now, to note, denaturalization for material misrepresentation in the citizenship process is not new nor is it wrong. If citizenship is not gained honestly, then yeah, revoke it. Viewed in the larger whole though, any increase in government efforts to revoke citizenship needs to be watched closely in case they move to change the legal criteria.
 
brihard said:
DOJ just days ago published a memo to the effect that they will prioritize revoking citizenship (‘denaturalization’) for criminality and misrepresentation. They will also be moving to carry this out via civil proceedings versus criminal, which is a change in how they do this. ThereMs some loose phraseology, however, that leaves open the door to the possibility that they will soon look to further expand situations in which denaturalization shall be sought.


Now, to note, denaturalization for material misrepresentation in the citizenship process is not new nor is it wrong. If citizenship is not gained honestly, then yeah, revoke it. Viewed in the larger whole though, any increase in government efforts to revoke citizenship needs to be watched closely in case they move to change the legal criteria.
Click to expand...
I read they'll probably try to invoke the "moral character" aspect of denaturalization pretty loosely. Tough to quantify, easy to abuse if the courts aren't watching like a hawk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top