Donald J. Trump (For everyone else except Victor)

FWIW I believe it’s more about those that talk about wealth inequalities don’t believe privatizing everything will necessarily be at the advatnagey of the citizens because yes you are right ->
private sector goal are to make money , not help people to pay less for equal public services …
If they can make people pay more they will do it to increase their margin .
The well being of individual has no place in their profits margin .

I wouldn’t worry about it too much

It’s the Gulf of America now

I’m paying 30 cents/gallon more for gas than I did Inauguration Day but that doesn’t matter cuz Trump’s still trolling Denmark. So much winning and it’s only been a week!

Not only that, he magically began the inflation months before he even entered office.

Relax. I sent him away for some fresh air; I didn’t lobotomize him.

So I read Trump is going to make tips tax-exempt.

What’s stopping all independent contractors / small business owners etc from claiming that 20% of their income is from tipping?

Anyone that relies on tips as part of their income, who cares? I'm sure there is another segment of the tax base that could make up the losses.

Same thing that prevents employers from committing crimes now, I'd imagine: not wanting to get taken to financial poundtown when the feds come knocking.

Tip income is tracked and resides a separate box on your W2.

If you suddenly report tip income for the first time once the law is in place, you'll be on a list. Since Trump will have fired everyone at the IRS, your audit will be conducted by ChatGPT.

The chances of this happening are more remote than churches having to pay taxes.

He’s a regular football bettor who’s unaware of the difference between a left back and a right back, so don’t be so surprised.

Your nation performs poorly because kids are poorly educated and discouraged from:thinking for themselves. It’s the result of many decades of American Exceptionalism, the dollar, God, the flag and anthems being drummed into young minds, resulting in a nation of 50% morons, maybe even higher.

when jon stewart starts pointing out the absurdity of the left crying wolf you know it's a real problem

The “buyout” offer for Fed employees actually says that if you accept you agree to resign in August, and in return you don’t have to follow any RTO rules put in place. It says your day to day duties “may” be changed by your management but nothing guaranteed.

So unless you’re a full remote employee, this basically means you just have to keep doing your job like you were before but you’ve agreed to quit before the new fiscal year turns around. And in the meantime you’re gonna be subject to a manager who knows you’re out and is probably under a “do more with less mandate”. Fun times. Although a bunch of people will probably just do it to not deal with the bullshit anymore

It isn't obvious as there are no SCOTUS decisions that specifically answer the question as posed by the order (SCOTUS precedents are about legal permanent immigrant children being citizens, and that isn't touched by the EO), so even if there is a high chance of SCOTUS determining that the order is unconstitutional in full or in part, it's good that SCOTUS gets a say on the topic.

And wtf lol at "dictator" for writing an EO that interprets the constitution on a topic SCOTUS *never answered precisely* in a way you disagree with.

You know what would be dictator-like? if SCOTUS cancels the order and Trump disregards that, that would be acting as a dictator.

I don't understand why you think this should be a federal matter though.

I do understand the need for preschools, and i do understand the state can consider it proper and good to spend taxpayers money on them for various positive reasons, i don't understand why the federal Congress and the President should have anything to do with it at all.

It is (or it should be) A state matter. Then you will vote according to your preferences and if people in your state (or county) agree with you on that specific welfare need, you fund it locally and spend the money with local supervision.

Yes disruption will always negatively affect people for a while. But the negatives of people missing out on something can't be used to justify inaction, then the action is clearly good directionally: removing the federal state from everything which the constitution doesn't explicitly says is a federal matter.

Everything that can be done locally shouldn't have federal involvement, unless prescribed by the constitution.

cutting programs and trying to fire as many federal employees as possible outside of defense/immigration is objectively an attempt to diminish the power, size and scope of the federal government.

Same as increasing the number of federal employees is literally increasing the size and scope and power of the federal government.

The Supreme Court has said three times that if you are born on US soil you are a citizen here. Plus, common law here and england and the 14th amendment. So what is the question posed in the order do you think remains unanswered?

I am only aware of Wong Kim Ark (1898) where SCOTUS only answered about legal permanent immigrants.

Which are the 2 other decisions you have in mind?

We've already seen that this particular supreme court doesn't give a rats ass about prior decisions.

Wong Kim Ark, who alleged that he was a citizen of the United States, of more than 21 years of age, and was born at San Francisco in 1873, of parents of Chinese descent, and subjects of the emperor of China, but domiciled residents at San Francisco.

Don't know where you get the term "legal permanent immigrant" or your facts from.

Question
Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169...

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal...

Anyway, what are the other 2 cases you had in mind?

Simply wrong; the # of bureaucrats in and of itself does nothing to diminish the scope or authority of the federal government.

I have no idea what oyez is but the Wong case is pretty clear about the facts of the case and never uses the term “legal permanent resident” in it and states the parents are subjects of the emperor of China and reside in the US. You still haven’t answered my question, Frances.

Wong:

The case was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts agreed by the parties:
"That the said Wong Kim Ark was born in the year 1873, at No. 751 Sacramento Street, in the city and county of San Francisco, State of California, United States of America, and
Page 169 U. S. 651
that his mother and father were persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, and that said Wong Kim Ark was and is a laborer."
"That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid."
"That said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark continued to reside and remain in the United States until the year 1890, when they departed for China."
"That during all the time of their said residence in the United States as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China."
"That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to-wit, a residence in said State of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States."

where's d2 these days? we need you man.