Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Trump 2.0 Continues

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, boestar said:

Every enemy of the state that the US has ever had was a product of their own doing.

A common failing with US foreign policy in the area IMO, but ISIS was (and is) a different case and they needed to be stopped for purely humanitarian reasons. Most of the trouble stems from two North American misconceptions I think: one is that everyone everywhere is hungry for secular democracy and the other is a simple failure to ask the simple question… what comes next and what fills the vacuum?

Folks like Assad, Gaddafi and Hussein were/are all students of “The Prince” and it’s hard for me to envision any other method of maintaining peace and stability there without that approach, even though most would find (and rightly so) their politics and methods unpalatable. If anyone other than Trump were to start a draw down of troops, CNN etc, would be beating the celebration drum and would never consider the “what comes next?” question. Their dislike of all things Trump has lead to the first rational discussion of the issue in a long time. I fear it's the right question but only asked for selfish partisan reasons that reflect poorly on them. I'm left with the question, where were you yesterday and why did you poo poo the issue when I (and lots of others) asked the same questions you are suddenly bent on finding answers for?

"He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation."

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah..we know.....the noose is tightening...

 

Stellar U.S. jobs report prompts all-caps Trump Tweet

The U.S. economy posted gangbusters job growth in December. And Trump is doing a happy dance. 

U.S. employers hired the most workers in 10 months in December while boosting wages, which could help to allay a recent upsurge in fears about the economy’s health that has roiled financial markets.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4814739/us-december-nonfarm-payrolls-trump-tweet/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News is really going after this administration now.  They are calling out the lie about the wall, when even Chris Wallace is saying that the stats prove the biggest threat is through airports.  Maybe they should spend more money in airports?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-shuts-down-sarah-huckabee-sanders-claim-about-terrorists-crossing-border?source=articles&via=rss

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders attempted on Sunday morning to further the lie that thousands of terrorists have been stopped trying to cross the the southern border of the United States. But Fox News’ Chris Wallace was ready.

The Fox News Sunday host played a clip of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen claiming that her agency has stopped over 3,000 “special interest aliens”—anyone who comes from a country that has ever produced a terrorist—”trying to come into the country on the southern border,” and informed that press secretary that President Trump’s own State Department has found “no credible evidence” of any terrorists coming across the border from Mexico.

But Sanders doubled down, saying, “We know that roughly, nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.”

“Wait, wait, wait,” Wallace said, stopping her there. “Because, I know the statistic. I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come—where they are captured? Airports.”

As Sanders replied, “Not always,” Wallace interjected and repeated, “Airports,” adding,“The State Department says there hasn’t been any terrorists that they’ve found coming across the southern border with Mexico.”

“It’s by air, it’s by land, it’s by sea, it’s all of the above,” Sanders replied, “but one thing that you’re forgetting is at the most vulnerable point of entry that we have into this country is our southern border. And we have to protect it.”

“But they’re not coming across the southern border, Sarah, they’re coming and they’re being stopped at airports,” Wallace said once again.

Ultimately, Sanders told him, “I’m not disagreeing with you that they’re coming through airports,” before pivoting to say, “the more and more that our border becomes vulnerable and the less and less that we spend time and money protecting it, the more that we’re going to have an influx, not just of terrorists, but of human traffickers, drug inflow and people who are coming here to do American citizens harm.”

A few of hours later, Brian Stelter showed the clip of the exchange on his CNN show Reliable Sources, and declared, “All I want to say is, thank you Chris Wallace.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this never end? Will we ever be rid of the fallacy of proportion? One of the principles of warfare is “defence in depth” and it's a good one to keep in mind here.

Good Lord, in what galaxy does building a fence negate defending your airports, or your sea ports, or a host of sensitive infrastructure establishments. One dimensional thinking and partisan rhetoric is becoming dangerous now... I still await a Democratic plan FOR ANYTHING. Toronto is a bloody war zone.... I'll take a Liberal plan that makes sense anytime too. In fact, stop making things worse and I'll settle for that until fall.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is finally coming out is that even the 'friendly' news services are fed up with the lies they are being asked to spread.

Look beyond Donnies distractions, and see who his friends are that are really profiting from his 'policies'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everybody is paying attention to the man behind the curtain.  We told you not to.  LOTS going on in plain sight and not a word about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WE used to say "Liar, Liar pants on fire" now we say he made some questionable claims.

January 8, 2019 8:38 pm
Updated: January 8, 2019 10:01 pm

FACT CHECK: Donald Trump’s case for the border wall had a number of questionable claims

By Jesse Ferreras and Rahul Kalvapalle Global News
News: Trump says border wall would 'very quickly' pay for itselfx
 

President Donald Trump said during a televised address on Tuesday that a border wall would be paid for "indirectly" by the USMCA trade deal and would "very quickly pay for itself."

 

U.S. President Donald Trump laid out his case for a border wall along America’s southwest border on Tuesday — and made numerous claims that warrant more scrutiny.

Trump claimed, among other things, that the border is facing a crisis — a claim questioned by academics.

The president also said the wall will be paid for indirectly through a trade deal that the U.S. has reached with Mexico — that too has come under question.

READ MORE: Donald Trump threatens to call national emergency to force wall approval

Claim: ‘I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.’

Trump finds agreement with Democrats that there’s a humanitarian crisis at the southern border — but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has charged that it’s the president’s doing.

The idea that there’s a security crisis along the southern border is questionable given that there are fewer apprehensions now than there were a decade ago.

University experts on immigration told Global News in November that they don’t believe there is a crisis at the border.

Claim: ‘We have requested more agents, immigration judges and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy.’

A strong correlation has, indeed, been found between the U.S. economy and undocumented immigration — but it doesn’t tell the whole story to suggest a “sharp rise” has happened.

Unauthorized migrant apprehensions are considered a strong metric for measuring border security.

These numbers are “usually positively correlated to the flow of unauthorized immigrants,” according to a Congressional research report.

There were 123,228 total apprehensions and inadmissibles along America’s southwest border between October and November, according to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).

That represents an increase from the previous two months, which saw just under 98,000 apprehensions and inadmissibles.

However, even when several apprehensions or inadmissibles are noticed in a couple of months, they don’t necessarily set a trend for a year.

There were just over 130,000 apprehensions and inadmissibles in the first two months of the 2017 fiscal year, but the annual total was 415,517 — the lowest in a five-year period.

 Claim: ‘Every day customs and border patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country.’

Agents may observe thousands of undocumented immigrants trying to enter the United States on a daily basis.

The latest numbers around apprehensions, however, don’t suggest that thousands are making it in every day — at least when you looking at figures concerning the southwest border.

There were 396,579 apprehensions at America’s southwest border in the 2018 fiscal year — that makes for daily apprehensions of just over 1,000.

There were fewer apprehensions in the 2017 fiscal year — 303,916, which averages out to just over 800 per day. 

Claim: ‘Every week 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.’

Trump is right that 90 per cent of heroin sold in the U.S. comes from Mexico — but the vast majority comes through legal points of entry.

The Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report that only a “small percentage” of heroin seized along the U.S.-Mexico border came between ports of entry.

This suggests that Trump’s border wall would do little to halt the flow of heroin from Mexico to the U.S.

READ MORE: Should Trump’s immigration address be aired on TV? Major U.S. networks skipped Obama’s in 2014

Claim: ‘Sen. Chuck Schumer… has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.’

Schumer was indeed among several Democrats, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which called for fencing along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

However, the fencing built under that act was nowhere near as comprehensive as Trump’s plan for a 1,000-mile-long concrete wall, and Trump himself stated as such during his presidential campaign.

In a Nov. 25, 2016 appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump dismissed the 2006 legislation as “such a little wall” and “such a nothing wall.”

Claim: ‘At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall.’

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Nancy Pelosi, denied outright that the Democrats requested this, according to CBS News.Claim: ‘In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.’

The numbers add up but they don’t quite tell the whole story.

There were just over 266,000 arrests of “immigration violators” over the past two years, according to the 2018 annual report by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

However, those arrests covered a wide range of offences in the 2018 fiscal year.

Those offences included driving under the influence, dangerous drugs, traffic offences, immigration and assault.

Research by the Brookings Institution has shown that immigrants to the U.S. are “considerably less likely than natives to commit crimes or to be incarcerated.”

That same research has shown that offering legal status to unauthorized immigrants can also bring crime down.

“This is associated with improvements in immigrants’ employment opportunities and a corresponding increase in the opportunity cost of crime,” it said.

Unauthorized immigration, Brookings added, “does not seem to have a significant effect on rates of violent crime.”

Claim: ‘Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the U.S., a dramatic increase.’

Customs and Border Patrol hasn’t publicly posted data showing how many migrant children were brought into America in December.

If the number is 20,000, however, that would indeed represent a “dramatic increase” — it would nearly match the total family units that were apprehended at the southwest border in October and November.

“Family units” refer to individuals that the U.S. Border Patrol apprehends with a family member.

In November alone, 25,172 family units were apprehended, along with 5,283 unaccompanied children.

There were 51,856 total southwest border apprehensions that month.

Meanwhile, in October, there were 23,115 family units apprehended, alongside just under 5,000 unaccompanied children.

All told, there were 51,001 total southwest border apprehensions that month.

Fact check on Donald Trump’s televised speech: Overselling the border wall as solution to drugs

 
‎Yesterday, ‎January ‎8, ‎2019, ‏‎7:36:26 PM | The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In his prime-time speech to the nation, President Donald Trump wrongly accused Democrats of refusing to pay for border security and ignored the reality of how illicit drugs come into the country as he pitched his wall as a solution to trafficking.

A look at his Oval Office remarks Tuesday night:

TRUMP: “Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 per cent of which floods across from our southern border.”

THE FACTS: A wall can’t do much about that when drug trafficking is concentrated at land ports of entry, not remote stretches of the border.

The Drug Enforcement Administration says “only a small percentage” of heroin seized by U.S. authorities comes across on territory between ports of entry. The same is true of drugs generally.

In a 2018 report, the agency said the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. though entry ports, where they are stopped and subject to inspection. They also employ buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing other smuggling methods that also would not be choked off by a border wall.

Trump recently denied that traffickers use entry ports at the southern border, contradicting the evidence and assertions of his drug enforcement personnel.

Trump stretched credulity even more by comparing the wall money he wants from Congress to the cost of the entire drug problem in the U.S.: “The border wall would very quickly pay for itself. The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year, vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.”

——

TRUMP: “Democrats will not fund border security.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. They just won’t fund it the way he wants. They have refused his demand for $5.7 billion to build part of a steel wall across the U.S.-Mexico border

Democrats passed legislation the day they took control of the House that offered $1.3 billion for border security, including physical barriers and technology along the U.S. southern border.

Senate Democrats have approved similar funding year after year.

Democrats have also supported broader fence-building as part of deals that also had a path to legal status for millions of immigrants living in the country illegally.

In 2013, Senate Democrats voted for a failed immigration bill that provided roughly $46 billion for a number of border security measures — including new fencing — but that legislation would have created a pathway to citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

The 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act had money to double the number of miles of fencing, to 700 miles (1,126 km), as well as for more border patrol agents. It also had a mandatory employment verification system to ensure all U.S. employees are authorized to work in the country. In exchange, however, the bill allowed immigrants living in the country illegally to apply for a provisional legal status if they paid a $500 fine and had no felony convictions.

As well many Democrats voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which has resulted in the construction of about 650 miles (1,050 kilometres) of border barrier. But that legislation didn’t authorize the kind of wall Trump has long been advocating since he launched his campaign.

trump-2.png?w=640&h=480

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the nation in his first-prime address from the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 8, 2019.

——

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: “The fact is: President Trump has chosen to hold hostage critical services for the health, safety and well-being of the American people and withhold the paychecks of 800,000 innocent workers across the nation – many of them veterans.” — response to Trump’s remarks.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, Senate Democratic leader: “The president of the United States – having failed to get Mexico to pay for his ineffective, unnecessary border wall, and unable to convince the Congress or the American people to foot the bill – has shut down the government.” — response to Trump.

THE FACTS: That’s one way to look at it. But it takes two sides to shut down the government. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The refusal of Democrats to approve the money is another.

——

TRUMP: “Over the years thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”

THE FACTS: His statement that people in the country illegally are a special menace to public safety is at odds with plentiful research.

Multiple studies from social scientists and the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute have found that people here illegally are less likely to commit crime than U.S. citizens, and legal immigrants are even less likely to do so.

A March study by the journal Criminology found “undocumented immigration does not increase violence.”

The study, which looked at the years 1990 through 2014, said states with bigger shares of such people have lower crime rates.

trump-1.png?w=640&h=480

Migrants mainly from Mexico and Central America look on as U.S. President Donald Trump gives a prime-time address about border security on television, Jan. 8, 2019, watching from a border migrant shelter in Tijuana, Mexico.

As well, a study in 2017 by Robert Adelman, a sociology professor at University of Buffalo, analyzed 40 years of crime data in 200 metropolitan areas and found that immigrants helped lower crime. New York City, for example, has the nation’s largest population of immigrants living in the country illegally — about 500,000 — and last year had only 289 murders among a total population of 8.5 million people, according to preliminary data. Those numbers mean a person’s odds of becoming a victim of homicide in tightly packed, diverse New York City were about the same as they were in Wyoming, Montana and South Dakota.

Those numbers mean a person’s odds of becoming a victim of homicide in tightly packed, diverse New York City were about the same as they were last year in Montana.

And Ruben Rumbaut, a University of California, Irvine sociology professor, co-authored a recent study that noted crime rates fell sharply from 1990 to 2015 at a time when illegal immigration spiked.

——

TRUMP: “The wall will also be paid for indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.”

THE FACTS: Mexico is not paying for the wall despite what Trump promised during the 2016 campaign, and nothing in the trade agreement would cover or refund the construction cost.

Trump is assuming a wide variety of economic benefits will come from the agreement, but they can’t be quantified or counted on. For example, he has said the deal will dissuade some U.S. companies from moving operations to Mexico and he credits that possibility as a payment by Mexico for his wall.

The deal updates the North American Free Trade Agreement, in the main preserving NAFTA’s liberalized environment of low or no tariffs among the U.S., Mexico and Canada, while making certain improvements for each country. Trump stated inaccurately that it’s “brand new. It’s totally different.”

Moreover, it’s not in effect. The deal has yet to be ratified in any member country and its chances of winning legislative approval are not assured.

——

TRUMP: “America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation but all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages.”

THE FACTS: The U.S. is not experiencing “uncontrolled” illegal immigration. The debate is over whether the controls are strong enough.

As for the costs, a major academic study in 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found the job impacts of immigration, when measured over at least 10 years, are very small. It found immigration — legal and illegal — is an overall benefit to long-term economic growth.

Some evidence suggests that skilled immigrants boost wages. Native-born Americans without a high-school degree are most likely to suffer.

The academy study said estimating fiscal impacts of immigration is complex. Young and old immigrants tend to drain government resources while working-age immigrants contribute.

——

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all news about nothing.

The 'migrants' are illegally in the Country and there really is a problem Batman!

Why aren't the left wing media outlets running stories featuring past clips of present day democratic leaders vigorously advocating on behalf of the wall and a number of other enforcement initiatives?

Answer; because the globalists have the majority of democrats, a few republicans and most of the mainstream media in their pockets and don't want the public to realize how corrupt governments really are, nor do they want us to recognize their effort to craft a new world order / society for themselves.

With the majority of people now living in the digital world it's easy for the collective to fill the empty heads of the gullible masses with inconsequential nonsense to fret about. 

In effect, we exist within a mindless society, a nation comprised of Nero clones content to fiddle their lives away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting "facts" re how illegals get into the US.  If accurate the wall will do little to stop the majority of illegals. Of the 6.5million presently in the US, it appears that only 500,000 crawled across the border …….

Quote

What is Illegal Immigration?

When foreign nationals enter the United States in the violation of U.S. immigration laws, it is considered illegal immigration. This type of migration includes both people who enter the United States without explicit permission (for instance, a visa) or if they enter the country lawfully, but stay beyond the authorized amount of time permitted to them. In 2016, the illegal immigrant population in America amounted to almost 11 million people.

You may wonder: how do people enter the United States illegally? A country as large as the U.S. has more than one illegal ways to enter its border. Here are the three most common avenues for illegal immigration in America.

 

1. Illegal Entry

Each year, an estimated 500,000 people enter the country illegally, accounting for about 6.5 million of the undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. Often, people enter the country with the help of “coyotes,” people smugglers that operate on the U.S.-Mexico border. The most popular area fo unlawful migration is the desert border area of the state of the Arizona and Mexico border. However, not all illegal entries occur over the southern border. For instance, in 1993 the Golden Venture voyage attempted to smuggle almost 300 undocumented Chinese immigrants.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor in the United States. If caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, non-nationals face deportation.

 

 

2. Visa Overstay

When a tourist or traveler stays in the United States beyond the deadline implemented on their legal travel visa, it is considered illegal immigration via “visa overstay.” About 5 million foreign nationals entered the country with a legal visa. In actuality, that accounts for somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of the illegal immigrant population.

The time a person has to remain in the United States legally depends on the kind of visa granted to the traveler. Typically, a visa overstayer enters the U.S. on a tourist or business visa. For this reason, most people consider visa overstay immigrants as educated and better-off than other types of illegal immigrants.

The United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program collects biometric information such as fingerprints and photographs of any nationals coming into the United States to track visa overstayers. Any person wishing to visit the United States must have a readable, electronic passport with the required information. 

Those who overstay their visa for less than a year, then leave the United States, face a three-year ban from re-entering the country. If the person overstays their visa for over a year, the ban increases to 10 years. In the fiscal year 2015, the Department of Homeland Security estimates out of 45 million legal U.S. arrivals by air and sea, almost 420k people remained in the country through 2016.

 

3. Border Crossing Card Violation

A less common illegal method of entry into the United States includes the abuse of the Border Crossing Card (BCC). The BCC authorizes an individual’s crossing the border for a specified amount of time. The Border Crossing Card is technically a visa that validates travel until an expiration date. The card typically has a ten-year expiration date.

While a smaller number of illegal immigrants use this method to enter the U.S., the BCC is the most common type of visa for registered non-immigrant entry. An estimated 148 million people out of 179 million total foreign visitors enter using the Border Crossing Card. However, it is difficult to determine how many people who are here illegally abused the visa to stay. Finally, a rough estimate states somewhere around 250-500,000 illegal immigrants came via Border Crossing Card violation.  https://www.pozogoldsteinny.com/illegal-immigration/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

January 9, 2019 4:48 pm

Stephen Harper says ‘a smart Canadian PM’ finds a way to get along with Trump

885953_10100819094660435_358176328172448 By Rahul Kalvapalle National Online Journalist  Global News
 

Former prime minister Stephen Harper says Canadian leaders have to find a way to get along with U.S. President Donald Trump because of Canada’s “overwhelming” dependence on the U.S. as an economic and geopolitical partner.

Harper made his remarks during a panel session with former British prime minister Tony Blair at the Raisina Dialogue, a geopolitical summit held in New Delhi and sponsored by the Indian government, on Tuesday.

“Every year, I would go to New York on business and [Trump] was on a list of people that asked to meet me but we never actually met,” Harper said when asked about his impressions of Trump. “But I know many of the people around him, I think I’ve got a pretty good picture.”

READ MORE: Trudeau says similarities between Scheer, Harper are worth ‘pointing out’

Without mentioning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by name, Harper said he believes it’s important that “a smart Canadian prime minister” gets a few things right when dealing with the American president.

“First of all, he establishes — to the best of his ability — a good personal relationship with the president of the United States, regardless of that president’s personality or political party,” said Harper.

“Secondly, a smart prime minister of Canada — because we can often be off the radar in Washington — goes out of his way to show when we are onside with the United States how we can be a useful partner in furthering the United States’ global role because that’s ultimately in our interests.

“If you do those two things correctly, that is the basis on which you can then respectfully disagree when you need to.”

WATCH: Trudeau responds to nationalism and social media comments aimed at Trump

trudeau2_848x480_1368163395826.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

Trump and some of his aides have hurled insults at Trudeau during testy trade talks over the past year.

Following the G7 summit last summer, Trump described Trudeau’s behaviour as “meek and mild” and accused Trudeau of making “false statements” at a press conference.

In the days that followed, Trump’s economic advisor Larry Kudlow told CNN that Trudeau “stabbed us in the back,” while trade advisor Peter Navarro told Fox News that there’s a “special place in hell” for Trudeau, who he accused of engaging in “bad-faith diplomacy.”

READ MORE: Timeline of Donald Trump’s war of words (and trade) with Justin Trudeau

Trump has occasionally used Trudeau’s first name derisively, slamming “Justin” in a series of tweets in the wake of the G7 summit.

In November, Trudeau used a press conference with Trump to encourage “Donald” to drop tariffs on steel and aluminum.

WATCH: Trudeau tells Trump that GM closures example of why steel tariffs creates economic barriers

2018-11-30T12-35-55.5Z--1280x720.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all

Harper said at the summit that the majority of Canada’s trade is with the U.S. while Canada’s “security and values interests” are linked to America’s, making it important for the two countries to maintain a strong relationship.

The Conservative former prime minister also met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and presented Modi with a copy of his new book.

The pair “exchanged views on developments in India-Canada relations, main global trends and cooperation among democracies,” Modi’s office said in a statement.

Harper also heaped praise on “my friend” Modi, calling him “the most significant leader of India since Independence.”

 

Harper’s visit to India comes three months after Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s trip to the South Asian country, which Scheer said he used to pitch Canadian oil and foreign policy cooperation to Modi.

READ MORE: Andrew Scheer pitches Canadian oil to Indian PM Narendra Modi, touts trade ties

It also comes less than a year after Trudeau’s troubled state visit to India.

Trudeau’s trip was marred by the invitation of convicted attempted murderer Jaspal Atwal to official events, with the National Security and Intelligence Committee issuing a report last month blaming several failings in the government’s vetting system for guest lists on foreign visits.

READ MORE: Security report on Justin Trudeau’s India trip finds serious ‘gaps’ in vetting process

Security sources told Global News’ Ottawa bureau chief Mercedes Stephenson that they believed the Prime Minister’s Office redacted the report to try and transfer the blame for security lapses to the RCMP, CSIS and other intelligence agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

Stephen Harper says ‘a smart Canadian PM’ finds a way to get along with Trump

PRICELESS !!

A29221FD-11C5-474E-8068-58B5A30C05F6.jpeg

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's walk this back and fact check a bit,,,,

Trudeau was trying to be collegial and friendly to Trump from the start, it was Trump that started to hurl insults and act like a petulant child when he couldn't bully and get his way.

Harper, with his track record, is in no position to be commenting on current leadership.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018/11/30/stephen-harper-nostalgia-sweeps-canadas-conservatives/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3ecfe1d6a085

If 2015 was a more substantial verdict, however, then Harper’s Conservatives clearly failed to prove themselves as persuasive guardians of what he described to Shapiro as his core political motives: “the interests of ordinary people and their concerns.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“  Remember Trump’s supposedly ‘lose-lose’ trade war? He’s winning. China's losing. “

The tariffs clearly hurt China’s economy more than America’s

 

Not that long ago, China’s economy was seen as a juggernaut that would soon overtake America’s to become the world’s largest. “Made in China 2025,” the Chinese government’s blueprint to take over manufacturing, was seen as an existential threat to U.S. technological leadership. Speculation had the Chinese yuan replacing the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

What a difference a trade war makes. No one marvels at the Chinese economy today.

Car sales in China, the world’s largest car market, plummeted by 19 per cent in December, capping a six-per-cent decline in sales for the 2018 year, the industry’s first fall in 20 years. Goldman Sachs predicts the decline will steepen to seven per cent in 2019. More broadly, China’s private and public manufacturing sectors both contracted in December.

China’s mainland stock markets, which declined 25 per cent in 2018, aren’t doing well either. Neither is growth in consumer spending, which is at a 15-year low. The government is backpedalling on its targets for “Made in China 2025,” and its other high-profile initiatives — the much-ballyhooed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative — are falling short.

In fact, the entire Chinese economy may not only be falling short, it may never have performed as well as claimed. Many believe that China’s official economic growth rate, a fabulous 6.5 per cent, is more a fable. A World Bank estimate for 2016 put China’s economic growth at 1.1 per cent, with other estimates showing low or even negative growth. Also worrying is the potentially catastrophic hidden debt that fuelled China’s growth — as much as US$6 trillion by China’s local governments alone, according to S&P Global Ratings, which called it “a debt iceberg with titanic credit risks.” Many authorities point to the trade war to explain in part these poor metrics, typically adding that trade wars are always lose-lose. Yet while China clearly seems a loser, the same can’t be said for the U.S., whose economy is on fire.

 

“ In contrast to the 15- and 20-year lows logged by China’s economic indicators, the U.S. is racking up 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-year highs. Wages are up, especially for those traditionally worse off, while unemployment rates for blacks, Hispanics and women are at lows not seen in decades. The U.S. economy has added 4.8 million jobs since Donald Trump was elected president, with U.S. manufacturers last year adding 284,000 jobs, the most in more than 20 years. Americans are ditching food stamps and disability payments for well-paying jobs. “Put it together, and this is the best time for the American labor market in at least 18 years and maybe closer to 50,” The New York Times noted in November.

So much for the claims of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which warned that Trump’s tariff policy on imported products “endangers the jobs of millions of workers”; of the Tax Foundation, which predicted that Trump’s tariffs would decrease Americans’ wages; of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who stated the trade war with China would reduce U.S. GDP; and of the Heritage Foundation, which called Trump’s tariffs “ineffective and dangerous.”

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-remember-trumps-supposedly-lose-lose-trade-war-hes-winning-chinas-losing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conflict of Interest?  Nah,,,,

China approves Donald Trump-branded spas, escort services, hotels and massage parlours without US Congress permission

Chinese authorities have granted preliminary approval for dozens of Trump-branded businesses, expanding his commercial empire and raising further conflicts of interest, say lawyers.

The 38 trademarks include new hotels, spas, escort and concierge services, massage parlors, personal security services and insurance, according to public documents.

The President’s lawyers applied for the trademarks in April last year, at the same time the then Presidential candidate Trump was accusing China of "ripping off" the US and deliberately manipulating its currency to its own advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, deicer said:

Conflict of Interest?  Nah,,,,

I thought his two sons were running the company at arms length now.... is there evidence to the contrary?

I'm just wondering if everything Russian is now sinful or if there is real evidence to support your claim... I haven't seen it.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

I thought his two sons were running the company at arms length now.... is there evidence to the contrary?

I'm just wondering if everything Russian is now sinful or if there is real evidence to support your claim... I haven't seen it.

He is still involved in the operations of his companies, and it is before the courts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nine-questions-about-president-trumps-businesses-and-possible-conflicts-of-interest/2018/01/29/f8b2a3a8-014f-11e8-9d31-d72cf78dbeee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.950a2ae47024

As for all things Russian, Mueller's report is due shortly.  There have been convictions of his associates all around him.  

I think the biggest tell will be how hard Donnie fights to keep the report out of the public eye, just like his tax returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This unprecedented act makes it even more interesting to see the final report!

F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.

The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.

Agents and senior F.B.I. officials had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude. But the president’s activities before and after Mr. Comey’s firing in May 2017, particularly two instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect of the inquiry, the people said.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it. That inquiry is part of Mr. Mueller’s broader examination of how Russian operatives interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Trump associates conspired with them. It is unclear whether Mr. Mueller is still pursuing the counterintelligence matter, and some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening it.

The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation, that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division handles national security matters.

If the president had fired Mr. Comey to stop the Russia investigation, the action would have been a national security issue because it naturally would have hurt the bureau’s effort to learn how Moscow interfered in the 2016 election and whether any Americans were involved, according to James A. Baker, who served as F.B.I. general counsel until late 2017. He privately testified in October before House investigators who were examining the F.B.I.’s handling of the full Russia inquiry.

“Not only would it be an issue of obstructing an investigation, but the obstruction itself would hurt our ability to figure out what the Russians had done, and that is what would be the threat to national security,” Mr. Baker said in his testimony, portions of which were read to The New York Times. Mr. Baker did not explicitly acknowledge the existence of the investigation of Mr. Trump to congressional investigators.

No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, a lawyer for the president, sought to play down the significance of the investigation. “The fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national security means they found nothing,” Mr. Giuliani said on Friday, though he acknowledged that he had no insight into the inquiry.

The cloud of the Russia investigation has hung over Mr. Trump since even before he took office, though he has long vigorously denied any illicit connection to Moscow. The obstruction inquiry, revealed by The Washington Post a few weeks after Mr. Mueller was appointed, represented a direct threat that he was unable to simply brush off as an overzealous examination of a handful of advisers. But few details have been made public about the counterintelligence aspect of the investigation.

The decision to investigate Mr. Trump himself was an aggressive move by F.B.I. officials who were confronting the chaotic aftermath of the firing of Mr. Comey and enduring the president’s verbal assaults on the Russia investigation as a “witch hunt.”

A vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty.

The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries, criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years. Often, they result in no arrests.

Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.

Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.

In the months before the 2016 election, the F.B.I. was also already investigating four of Mr. Trump’s associates over their ties to Russia. The constellation of events disquieted F.B.I. officials who were simultaneously watching as Russia’s campaign unfolded to undermine the presidential election by exploiting existing divisions among Americans.

“In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself, you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability, America’s ability and the West’s ability to spread our democratic ideals,” Lisa Page, a former bureau lawyer, told House investigators in private testimony reviewed by The Times.

“That’s the goal, to make us less of a moral authority to spread democratic values,” she added. Parts of her testimony were first reported by The Epoch Times.

And when a newly inaugurated Mr. Trump sought a loyalty pledge from Mr. Comey and later asked that he end an investigation into the president’s national security adviser, the requests set off discussions among F.B.I. officials about opening an inquiry into whether Mr. Trump had tried to obstruct that case.

But law enforcement officials put off the decision to open the investigation until they had learned more, according to people familiar with their thinking. As for a counterintelligence inquiry, they concluded that they would need strong evidence to take the sensitive step of investigating the president, and they were also concerned that the existence of such an inquiry could be leaked to the news media, undermining the entire investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election.

After Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, two more of Mr. Trump’s actions prompted them to quickly abandon those reservations.

The first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send to Mr. Comey about his firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation. In the letter, Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Comey for previously telling him he was not a subject of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

Even after the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, wrote a more restrained draft of the letter and told Mr. Trump that he did not have to mention the Russia investigation — Mr. Comey’s poor handling of the Clinton email investigation would suffice as a fireable offense, he explained — Mr. Trump directed Mr. Rosenstein to mention the Russia investigation anyway.

He disregarded the president’s order, irritating Mr. Trump. The president ultimately added a reference to the Russia investigation to the note he had delivered, thanking Mr. Comey for telling him three times that he was not under investigation.

The second event that troubled investigators was an NBC News interview two days after Mr. Comey’s firing in which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russia inquiry.

“I was going to fire Comey knowing there was no good time to do it,” he said. “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

Mr. Trump’s aides have said that a fuller examination of his comments demonstrates that he did not fire Mr. Comey to end the Russia inquiry. “I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people,” Mr. Trump added. “He’s the wrong man for that position.”

As F.B.I. officials debated whether to open the investigation, some of them pushed to move quickly before Mr. Trump appointed a director who might slow down or even end their investigation into Russia’s interference. Many involved in the case viewed Russia as the chief threat to American democratic values.

“With respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life,” Ms. Page told investigators for a joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee investigation into Moscow’s election interference.

F.B.I. officials viewed their decision to move quickly as validated when a comment the president made to visiting Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly after he fired Mr. Comey was revealed days later.

“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again it is proven that trickle down economics are the greatest lie set upon man.  Just ahead of anything Donnie says. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html

Federal tax revenues declined in 2018 while economic growth accelerated, undercutting the Trump administration’s insistence that the $1.5 trillion tax package would pay for itself.

It’s time to put to rest any notion that President Trump’s signature tax cuts are paying for themselves. Anyone who says otherwise is lying with numbers.

A year after the $1.5 trillion tax-cut package took effect, economic growth has accelerated, just as Republicans promised it would when pushing the law through Congress. Growth appears likely to hit 3 percent for 2018, after adjusting for inflation, which is a full percentage point higher than the Congressional Budget Office forecast for the year in 2017. Not all of that increase is attributable to the tax cuts, but some of it is.

That’s good news for Republicans’ longstanding claim that cutting taxes would provide such an economic bump that additional tax revenue would flow in to make up for what was lost through lower tax rates.

But the bad news is that hasn’t happened. The additional tax revenue has yet to show up, even with stronger growth.

Data released this week by the budget office provides the first complete picture of federal revenues for the 2018 calendar year, when the tax cuts were in full effect. (The government’s 2018 fiscal year included three months from the end of 2017, when most of the tax cuts were not in effect.)

In the inaugural year of the tax cuts — with economic growth accelerating and the jobless rate falling to an 18-year low — federal revenues from corporate, payroll and personal income taxes actually fell.

That’s true whether you adjust revenues and growth for inflation — or not.

After adjusting, it looks even worse. Revenues fell by 2.7 percent — or $83 billion — from 2017. Contrast that with the last time economic growth approached 3 percent, back in 2015. The economy grew by 2.9 percent after adjusting for inflation that year — and tax revenues grew by 7 percent.

The historical contrast makes the drop-off look even steeper. Typically, economists expect stronger growth to generate more revenue. People earn more money, corporations generate higher profits and they all pay taxes on it.

The way most economists “score” a tax proposal is to ask how it would change revenue levels compared to what you would expect the government to collect if the tax cut had not passed — what economists call a “baseline.”

In the summer of 2017, for example, the budget office projected that the economy would grow by 2 percent in the 2018 fiscal year, and that personal, corporate and payroll taxes would add up to $3.24 trillion. Then the tax cuts passed, growth accelerated and, for the 2018 fiscal year, tax revenues fell $183 billion — or 5.6 percent — short of that projection.

Republicans, particularly in the Trump administration, sold the tax law on claims that it would pay for itself — even when economists outside the administration, like the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, released models contradicting them. As corporate tax receipts fell significantly last year, some Republicans began to insist that, in fact, the bill was paying for itself, because total tax revenues were very slightly up.

The 2018 figures contradict that argument, too.

The uncomfortable truth for the bill’s supporters is that the tax cuts are substantially contributing to a widening federal budget deficit, which now appears on track to top $1 trillion this year. If growth fades in the coming years — as many economists believe it will — the cuts could exacerbate the deficit even more.

The best-case scenario for proponents is that the cuts spur a sustained increase in productivity and growth, which in turn produces increasingly higher revenues several years down the road — enough to reduce the “cost” of the bill to the budget deficit.

The 2018 results are, oddly enough, what a lot of economists predicted would happen with Mr. Trump’s cuts, including ones who generally favor tax cuts. Total federal revenues in 2018 came in roughly where the Tax Foundation, a Washington think tank that typically projects large growth boosts from tax cuts, had forecast — which is to say, well below the budget office’s baseline.

Just because the new law helped to increase economic growth, said Kyle Pomerleau, an economist with the Tax Foundation, “it doesn’t mean that it is going to pay for itself.” Mr. Pomerleau said additional growth from the law “will continue to be modest over the next couple of years.”

“That will offset some of the initial cost,” he continued, “but it will still be nowhere near enough to make the tax cut self-financing.”

In December 2017, as Republicans sped the tax cuts through Congress, the Tax Foundation released a projection that the cuts would add about $450 billion to federal deficits over 10 years, after accounting for the additional economic growth it would spur. The group has since redone the analysis, with what Mr. Pomerleau called improvements to its methodology. It now predicts deficits will increase by $900 billion — double its original forecast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you realize it Deicer, but all the left wing doom & gloom predictions and wishes for the collapse of the Country you post are the work product of communists.

Wouldn't the more important question be for you to be asking how Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist collective intend to survive when the 10% that already pay 90% of the income taxes are finally squeezed dry, or just give up on the Nation and take what's left of their assets, creative abilities and entrepreneurial skills elsewhere?

I mean, all you have to do is look to countries like Venezuela to see how their pursuit of a socialistic ideology quickly left them to feed their children pets and sticks while they wait for more free stuff to arrive in the form of foreign aid.

I don't understand why a North American left winger would want to pursue an agenda that is guaranteed to bring more of the same to their Country and children too.

 

 

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where you have it wrong is that the average American/Canadian is getting fed up with having to shoulder the load while the corporations and 1% get away with a disproportionately awesome deal.  If they only paid their fair, and I emphasise 'fair' share of taxes, the health, education and infrastructure deficits that exist wouldn't exist. And it goes for Canada as well.

As it has been said, 'A conservative is a person making $250/hr who convinces the person making $25/hr that the guy making $12/hr is the problem.'

To back up my claim, I submit this, and if you follow the links, it does back up the premise from legitimate sources.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/

Key Facts

Talking points

  • We should end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs and profits offshore. It’s time to invest in America and create jobs here.
  • When big corporations use tax havens to dodge paying their fair share of taxes, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. Families pay higher taxes, get fewer services or we all get a bigger deficit.
  • Tax dodging by large corporations puts small businesses that play by the rules at a disadvantage. We need to level the playing field.
  • Corporations say our 35% corporate income tax rate is the highest in the world, which makes them uncompetitive and kills jobs. But corporations aren’t paying too much in taxes; many pay too little. The typical American family paid more income taxes in one year than General Electric and dozens of other companies paid in five years. Many large, profitable corporations pay a tax rate of less than 20%, and some pay absolutely nothing for years. If corporations pay less, you will have to pay more. Corporations need to pay their fair share too.
  • Corporations say a repatriation tax holiday will enable them to bring profits home, invest and create jobs. When this was tried in 2004 it was an utter failure. Companies actually cut jobs, but they lined the pockets of big shareholders and corporate executives. A tax holiday gives tax breaks to corporations that have done the most to dodge paying their fair share of taxes.

—————————-

Overview

Many U.S. corporations use offshore tax havens and other accounting gimmicks to avoid paying as much as $90 billion a year in federal income taxes. A large loophole at the heart of U.S. tax law enables corporations to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits until they are brought home. Known as “deferral,” it provides a huge incentive to keep profits offshore as long as possible. Many corporations choose never to bring the profits home and never pay U.S. taxes on them.

Deferral gives corporations enormous incentives to use accounting tricks to make it appear that profits earned here were generated in a tax haven. Profits are funneled through subsidiaries, often shell companies with few em­ployees and little real business activity. Effectively, firms launder U.S. profits to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Loopholes used to shift U.S. profits to tax havens

  • U.S. firms can set up a subsidiary offshore, channel billions of dollars of profit through it and make the subsidiary “disappear” for U.S. tax purposes simply by “checking a box” on an IRS form.
  • Corporations can sell the right to patents and licenses at a low price to an offshore subsidiary, which then “licenses” back to the U.S. parent at a steep price the right to sell its products in America. The goal of this “transfer pricing” is to make it appear that the company earns profits in tax havens but not in the U.S.
  • Wall Street banks, credit card companies and other corporations with large financial units can easily move U.S. profits offshore using a loophole known as the “active financing exception.”
  • A U.S. corporation can do an “inversion” by buying a foreign firm and then claiming that the new, merged company is foreign. This lets it reincorporate in a country, often a tax haven, with a much lower tax rate. The process takes place on paper — the company doesn’t move its headquarters offshore and its ownership is mostly unchanged — but it continues to enjoy the privileges of operating here while paying low tax rates in the foreign country.

How to solve the problem

The simplest solution is to end “deferral,” as proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Corporations would pay taxes on offshore income the year it is earned, rather than indefinitely avoid paying U.S. income taxes. This would also remove incentives to shift U.S. profits to tax havens, and it would raise $600 billion over 10 years.

Short of ending deferral, Congress should close the most egregious loopholes, such as “check the box,” “transfer pricing,” the “active financing exception” and corporate “inversions.” It should also end the loophole that lets firms deduct the cost of expenses from moving jobs and operations offshore if the profits earned from those activities remain offshore and untaxed by the U.S. — saving $60 billion over 10 years.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) has introduced legislation, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (S. 1533), that will close some of these loopholes. It will raise $220 billion over 10 years.

Corporations really want a “territorial” tax system

Corporations don’t just want to “defer” paying U.S. taxes on foreign profits. They want a “territorial” tax system that eliminates all U.S. taxation of offshore profits. This would provide even more incentives for corporations to shift profits to offshore tax havens. A system in which U.S. corporations pay no U.S. income taxes on offshore profits would encourage U.S. firms to create 800,000 jobs overseas rather than in the U.S.

Why not let companies “bring the money home?”

Because U.S. firms are officially holding $2.1 trillion in untaxed profits offshore, they are proposing a “repatriation tax holiday,” which would allow them to bring that money home at a special low tax rate. Supporters say this would increase domestic investment, creating jobs.

A tax holiday was tried in 2004, when $300 billion was brought home at a 5.25% tax rate, but it was a big failure. It did not increase domestic investment or create jobs, and the money was used largely for stock buybacks, dividends and executive bonuses. Also, a tax holiday costs more than it raises — it will lose $100 billion over 10 years. Worst of all, it rewards firms that use offshore tax loopholes, encouraging even more tax dodging in the future.

—————————-

News Coverage

Opinion

Resources

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this