• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
A corporation can be an empolyer, and you would be able to prove that a corporation hired an illegal worker quite easily, and fine it accordingly. Tracking down the specific beaureaucrat is not needed.

Right. Exactly. You can't send a corporation to prison. You impose a fine. And I'm saying that fines can be imposed faster and more efficiently through administrative action, rather than complex, lengthy criminal prosecution. And that's usually how OSHA violations, banking irregularities etc. are handled. Wells Fargo paid a $190 million fine for extensive fraud perpetrated by thousands of employees. Civil penalties are a quicker way than criminal prosecution to get to the same conclusion.
 
Right. Exactly. You can't send a corporation to prison. You impose a fine. And I'm saying that fines can be imposed faster and more efficiently through administrative action, rather than complex, lengthy criminal prosecution. And that's usually how OSHA violations, banking irregularities etc. are handled. Wells Fargo paid a $190 million fine for extensive fraud perpetrated by thousands of employees. Civil penalties are a quicker way than criminal prosecution to get to the same conclusion.

So the bosses avoid being accountable. They just figure it into the cost of doing business. They're NEVER actually are held responsible. It's actually easy to write laws where coporate executives are held accountable. The problemi is that isn't done. They are always written Iin such a way that they never are. You simply make it criminal to hire illegal aliens whether the corporate executives knew it or not. That way the CEO can't claim ignorance. He should have known and therefore is still responsible. Throw a few Fortune 500 Harvard grads in real prisons with the dregs and I guarantee you everyone snaps into line.

They're quite a few Ivy league bankers who should have gone to prison for the rest of their lives who instead got golden parachutes or at most were fired only to get another lucrative job.
 
Last edited:
So the bosses avoid being accountable. They just figure it into the cost of doing business. They're NEVER actually are held responsible. It's actually easy to write laws where coporate executives are held accountable. The problemi is that isn't done. They are always written Iin such a way that they never are. You simply make it criminal to hire illegal aliens whether the corporate executives knew it or not. That way the CEO can't claim ignorance. He should have known and therefore is still responsible. Throw a few Fortune 500 Harvard grads in real prisons with the dregs and I guarantee you everyone snaps into line.

They're quite a few Ivy league bankers who should have gone to prison for the rest of their lives who instead got golden parachutes or at most were fired only to get another lucrative job.

The only cases you might be able to cite where corporate executives were convicted personally of criminal charges for corporate misconduct are cases where those executives were proven to have personal knowledge and participation in crimes and where there was extreme loss, like a coal mine collapse. Coal executive Don Blankenship was sentenced to one year in prison after 29 miners were killed in a cave-in. That's not quite the same thing as fudging a new hire's paperwork.

I repeat, fat fines imposed administratively -- meaning quickly, with limited rights of appeal -- would be an efficient and effective deterrent. And even that isn't being done now.
 
The only cases you might be able to cite where corporate executives were convicted personally of criminal charges for corporate misconduct are cases where those executives were proven to have personal knowledge and participation in crimes and where there was extreme loss, like a coal mine collapse. Coal executive Don Blankenship was sentenced to one year in prison after 29 miners were killed in a cave-in. That's not quite the same thing as fudging a new hire's paperwork.
I agree, but thats because we don't make laws to that effect.
I repeat, fat fines imposed administratively -- meaning quickly, with limited rights of appeal -- would be an efficient and effective deterrent. And even that isn't being done now.


I want real criminals put in prison and I guarantee the biggest criminals are corporate execs.

A former boss of mine made millions cheating Hewlett Packard and was convicted of it. Our business folded because of it. Just showed up for work only to be interrogated by the FBI. Never got our last check even. He on the other hand was able to plea it down to a 250K fine for him and an agreement to stay out of that business for 2 years. Not a day in jail and he walked away with millions.

America incarcerates more people than any country in the developed world and they are inevitably not anywhere as damaging to our society as those who wear ties to work.
 
I'm a business history buff and it's a fascinating topic. As for the fact cities, counties and states have been playing one another off for decades...don't forget corporations forced it. It doesn't cost a CEO (or his board of directors) anything to tell New Jersey, "We need to get a utility/water/tax break or we're heading to South Carolina." And that's exactly what they've done.

One anecdote to illustrate how it can work. Forty-five years ago New York State created the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to fund and direct New York City Transit and the suburban commuter rail lines. One of the things they were accused of right away was putting much more per capita investment into the suburban railroads than in the city subways despite the fact the subway system carried three or four times as many riders.

Years ago on a late Sunday night radio Talk Show I heard former NY City mayor Abraham Beame interviewed about this. It was a good show because nobody listened to it and the politicians interviewed were often much more candid than usual. ;)

Beame admitted that when the MTA was created there was a lot of investment in the suburban commuter rail lines though he said "over time" the city's transit would get plenty of investment too. But he said, "Let me explain to you what happened." Beginning in the late 1960s some large corporations had begun to move -- and many more were talking about moving -- their corporate HQs out of Manhattan. Moving them to campus-style settings in the suburbs. This spelled disaster for NY City since the large corporations provided the tax base that made the city work. Cities that were losing their corporate tax base were going through dire times.

Beame said that Governor Rockefeller and Mayor Lindsay empaneled a group of political leaders to hold private off-the-record meetings with some of the city's top corporate leaders. Beame was one of the group members and he told the radio host, "We asked them, 'What can we do to keep you in the city? What would be at the top of the list?' And these guys, they all lived in the suburbs, and over and over they all told us the same thing, 'Fix the Long Island Rail Road, fix the New Haven Railroad, give me a decent commute, on a clean modern train that operates reliably on-time.' And," Beame said, "That's what we did."

And he went on to say, accurately I think, that the strategy worked. That the corporate move from Manhattan to the suburbs slowed, then stopped and eventually corporations began to expand their presence in Manhattan.
 
I think you've totally lost the thread of the conversation. My point had to do with an argument about whether some people might prefer exchanging money for leisure time. Which is kind of an obvious point, but some people here don't seem to understand it.
People aren't understanding your "obvious" point because it's not obvious. You can't eat leisure time. You would maybe consider working an extra hour for $100 (gross?net). That puts you extremely out of touch with reality for many working people.

Privilege is irrelevant to the discussion, but would it make you feel any better if I told you I've earned that privilege, by, for example, working hard in the past and being frugal?
Privilege is very relevant to the discussion. The ultimate privilege is to have been born in the U.S. I could sleep under bushes and eat out of dumpsters and still be wealthier than most of the world's people because I have shoes.

Being worried about Trump is itself a luxury problem. If he turns out to be a massive kleptocrat I'll still be luckier than most people. It just annoys me that so many people are clamoring to get screwed by this guy.

ETA: I notice you are not saying you actually worked hard and were frugal ...
 
Last edited:
We have a similar situation here in the state of WA. The ferry system's primary reason for existence is to provide a way for wealthy lawyers living on Bainbridge Island to get to Seattle.

This, by the way, is the second reference I've seen to Lindsay in a week, after having forgotten him for decades. The other involved the late Florence Henderson.
 
I took the 'Estimate Your Federal Income Tax" survey on a neutral taxpayers website -- I posted the link at the time -- and it estimated the federal income tax you would pay under Clinton or Trump. Under Clinton my federal tax would remain the same; under Trump it would go up by one-third, about $300 a year. (None of the Trumpers responded to that, by the way.)
What were the variables? I admit to ignorance about Trump's tax plan - just that he wants to cut taxes on the rich and cut the corporate income tax.
 
Trump breaks US policy stance with direct Taiwan call

US President-elect Donald Trump has spoken directly with the president of Taiwan - breaking with US policy set in 1979 when formal relations were cut.

Mr Trump's transition team said he and Tsai Ing-wen noted "close economic, political, and security ties" between the US and Taiwan in a phone call.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38191711
 
What were the variables between Clinton's tax plan and Trump's? I don't really recall, though I posted the results here a few weeks ago with a quote and a link to the taxpayers website. Clinton's plan was to continue the tax rates as at present with some increases for the top earners. The website said Trump's 'plan' was a bit tougher to understand because, as with almost everything he has proposed, there was not a whole lot of details, but he did have a fairly detailed explanation on his website which they based their estimates on.

But in rechecking I discovered Trump -- apparently in response to criticism (?) and without much fanfare -- revised his tax plan in October 2016. Tax analysts have noted the revised plan cuts everyone's taxes but most of the savings go to people earning over $500,000 a year. My estimated federal income tax would drop about $9 a year. For instance.

$30,000 - $40,000 income tax reduced by 1.2%
$50,000 - $75,000 reduced by 1.8%
$500,000 - $1.0 million reduced by 9.0%
More than $1.0 million reduced by 14.2%

Link
 
Last edited:
Privilege is irrelevant to the discussion, but would it make you feel any better if I told you I've earned that privilege, by, for example, working hard in the past and being frugal?

Is that how a person becomes Caucasian? Also, it is privilege to be wealthy, no matter how much you claim that you've earned it. People work hard and are frugal all the time, yet never become wealthy. Hard working, frugal people often can't get out of poverty. Also, here in the USA, it only takes one severe illness or injury to become bankrupt.
But you're conservative, so you probably believe that wealth is just a choice.
 
Last edited:
What were the variables between Clinton's tax plan and Trump's? I don't really recall, though I posted the results here a few weeks ago with a quote and a link to the taxpayers website. Clinton's plan was to continue the tax rates as at present with some increases for the top earners. The website said Trump's 'plan' was a bit tougher to understand because, as with almost everything he has proposed, there was not a whole lot of details, but he did have a fairly detailed explanation on his website which they based their estimates on.

But in rechecking I discovered Trump -- apparently in response to criticism (?) and without much fanfare -- has revised his tax plan. Tax analysts have noted the revised plan cuts everyone's taxes but most of the savings go to people earning over $500,000 a year. My estimated federal income tax would drop about $9 a year. For instance.

$30,000 - $40,000 income tax reduced by 1.2%
$50,000 - $75,000 reduced by 1.8%
$500,000 - $1.0 million reduced by 9.0%
More than 1.0 million reduced by 14.2%

Link

This is just the tax rates based on income. Trump is also screwing over single-parents by abolishing the earned-income credit for heads of household. This will affect the poorest of single parents the most. But they're poor people and don't really count as people, according to Republithink.
 
Not condoning it, but is it really a policy that a private US citizen cannot speak directly with the president of Taiwan?

No, not at all. However, the consideration is this is the President Elect not just Joe Blow speaking to someone who is not a representative of the Chinese government. The People's Republic of China considers Taiwan to be a rogue breakaway province. The US has supported a 1 China policy in the past yet has supplied arms to Taiwan. This is a sticky situation.
 
No, not at all. However, the consideration is this is the President Elect not just Joe Blow speaking to someone who is not a representative of the Chinese government. The People's Republic of China considers Taiwan to be a rogue breakaway province. The US has supported a 1 China policy in the past yet has supplied arms to Taiwan. This is a sticky situation.

Understood.
 
I doubt you'd be saying that if Hillary had won and everything was reversed.

I would because even if HRC had won, the bias in our governmental electioneering is still heavily toward the conservative. I would say, by the way, that a small tilt toward the status quo is ok by me because change should be somewhat difficult. But there is no tilt. The leaning Tower is Pisa is jealous.
 
No, we have lots of illegal immigrants because we don't enforce our laws, and we give out all kinds of perquisites to people who live here, regardless of immigration status. Like free schooling for their kids.

Nobody - but NOBODY - comes here illegally for free schooling. The driving force is jobs. And the reason the existing laws are not enforced is Big <fill in your favorite industry> likes cheap labor that won't bitch about working conditions.
 
Then again, the deal will put money in the hands of the 1,000 employees, with all the downstream effects that entails. Including sales tax paid on purchases. That $7 million does not just disappear. Analogous to public works projects. I have a feeling if Obama had done the deal and labeled the $7 million as "stimulus", the left would be applauding it.

But it's Trump, therefor bad out of hand.

Reminds me of Bush getting prescription drug coverage - something you'd think the left would applaud. But it was Bush, so fault had to be found.

Suppose you're in a business somewhat similar to Carrier. First you see a big threat to Carrier from Trump on the campaign trail and you think "He's gonna be tough" then post-election you see Trump offer Carrier a great deal to keep some jobs for a short period. You'd think two things immediately. One, hey, I'm going to threaten to move to Mexico too. And, two, that Trump doesn't just grab pussy, he is one.

Or worse, imagine you are a direct competitor of Carrier. If it was me I'd be on the phone to my lobbyist and congresscritters at 8 am the next morning.

And finally, who gets to fill in the hole that Carrier's tax break created. Yep, you guessed it buddy: you and I.

Intercourse Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom