Our New President - President Donald Trump

Post Reply New Topic

Sugary drinks are more often than not unnecessary luxuries so let them be taxed.

If you had one 120 calorie can of soda per day, and that was 120 calories more than you needed, and drank that for 12 years, you would gain over 63lbs.

It's unfortunate but a lot of Americans really have no concept of what a healthful diet is and are easily mislead by food companies as to what is "natural". For example, you might have seen bags of "snack sized" Snickers bars. This is because Mars. Inc would like you to think of their product as a snack, rather than a dessert or a treat, because people have snacks more often than desserts and treats.

Same with soda. Coca Cola would like you think that their drink is a respectable alternative to water. It's not. It's a liquid treat.

Kellogg would like you to think that Pop Tarts are part of a well balanced breakfast. They aren't. They are full of sugar and have little, if any protein to balance that. I suppose the only good argument you can make about them is, if you are going to eat a lot of sugar, it's better to do it at the start of your day than the end of it.

I was very fortunate. My grandparents and parents were very health conscious and I was raised with a good understanding of what constitutes a healthful meal and what doesn't, but many people aren't and their poor diets are the result of ignorance and misplaced trust in familiar food corporations than an informed choice made of free will.

In my view, these taxes aren't a reflection of a nanny state. People who make poor dietary choices, knowing so or otherwise, are more likely to become a burden to society than people who make good dietary choices, and there is no reason the government should not be compensated for the burden caused by the poor dietary choices of some of it's citizens.

Wow. When I talk about the dangers of lobbying, people ignore me.

Do you know what's apparently far more important? Unhealthy drinks are being taxed! OMG!

This is pretty ironic, given that conservatives are always going on about how fat liberals allegedly are.

"I don't care about democracy! Just give me my sugary drink already!"

Actually, I don't drink pop. Clearly, the state is taxing it to get money - so it is for the states own personal agenda. You want people to eat and drink better? Make decent food cheaper. I try to eat all organic and the prices are through the roof. I'm all for getting rid of cigarettes and alcohol - I don't smoke and I gave up alcohol. I also exercise pretty regularly. And I'm a nurse, so I can tell you that I'm damn tired of taking care of people who are fat, diabetics, and heart attacks waiting to happen. I probably have fast food once or twice a year, so I'm for getting rid of that crap too.

How's your way of life, DMK?

I'm not done. There's also a difference from a person having one cola drink when they go out to eat at a restaurant vs a chain smoker or someone who slams back coke after coke. If the single drinks in restaurants are taxed, then all other drinks should be too - not just pop.

Also, this is going to decrease business for the cola manufactures. All sugary drinks should be taxed across the board.

TWITTER AND SHADOW BANNING


Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking” Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it” Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion” When asked if banning process was an unwritten rule, Norai adds “Very. A lot of unwritten rules… It was never written it was more said” Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… sh***y people to not show up,” “we’re working [that] on right now” “Shadow banning” to be used to stealthily target political views- former Twitter engineer says, “that’s a thing” Censorship of certain political viewpoints to be automated via “machine learning” according to Twitter software engineer Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, on machine learning algorithms, “you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck…” “the majority of it are for Republicans”

(San Francisco) In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.

This video release follows the first undercover Twitter exposé Project Veritas released on January 10th which showed Twitter Senior Network Security Engineer Clay Haynes saying that Twitter is “more than happy to help the Department of Justice with their little [President Donald Trump] investigation.” Twitter responded to the video with a statement shortly after that release, stating “the individual depicted in this video was speaking in a personal capacity and does not represent of speak for Twitter.” The video released by Project Veritas today features eight employees, and a Project Veritas spokesman said there are more videos featuring additional employees coming.

On January 3rd 2018 at a San Francisco restaurant, Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter Software Engineer explains a strategy, called “shadow banning,” that to his knowledge, Twitter has employed:

“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Twitter is in the process of automating censorship and banning, says Twitter Software Engineer Steven Pierre on December 8th of 2017:

“Every single conversation is going to be rated by a machine and the machine is going to say whether or not it’s a positive thing or a negative thing. And whether it’s positive or negative doesn’t (inaudible), it’s more like if somebody’s being aggressive or not. Right? Somebody’s just cursing at somebody, whatever, whatever. They may have point, but it will just vanish… It’s not going to ban the mindset, it’s going to ban, like, a way of talking.”

Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “sh***y people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the sh***y people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

Former Twitter Engineer Conrado Miranda confirms on December 1st, 2017 that tools are already in place to censor pro-Trump or conservative content on the platform. When asked whether or not these capabilities exist, Miranda says, “that’s a thing.”

Unlike the tech companies, we aren't owned by billionaires. Unlike the mainstream media, we don't have major Wall Street advertisers. Please support our work with a small give today.
In a conversation with former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai on May 16th, 2017, we learned that in the past Twitter would manually ban or censor Pro-Trump or conservative content. When asked about the process of banning accounts, Norai said, “On stuff like that it was more discretion on your view point, I guess how you felt about a particular matter…”

When asked to clarify if that process was automated Norai confirmed that it was not:

“Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?'”

Norai also revealed that more left-leaning content would go through their selection process with less political scrutiny, “It would come through checked and then I would be like ‘Oh you know what? This is okay. Let it go.’”

Norai explains that this selection process wasn’t exactly Twitter policy, but rather they were following unwritten rules from the top:

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

At a San Francisco bar on January 5th, Pranay Singh details how the shadow-banning algorithms targeting right-leaning are engineered:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe believes the power over speech Silicon Valley tech giants has is unprecedented and dangerous:

“What kind of world do we live in where computer engineers are the gatekeepers of the ‘way people talk?’ This investigation brings forth information of profound public importance that educates people about how free they really are to express their views online.”

Project Veritas plans to release more undercover video from within Twitter in the coming days.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.

Immigration agents descend on 7-Eleven stores in 17 states
apnews.com

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Seven immigration agents filed into a 7-Eleven store before dawn Wednesday, waited for people to go through the checkout line and told arriving customers and a driver delivering beer to wait outside. A federal inspection was underway, they said.

Within 20 minutes, they verified that the cashier had a valid green card and served notice on the owner to produce hiring records in three days that deal with employees' immigration status.

The well-rehearsed scene, executed with quiet efficiency in Los Angeles' Koreatown, played out at about 100 7-Eleven stores in 17 states and the District of Columbia, a rolling operation that officials called the largest immigration action against an employer under Donald Trump's presidency.

The employment audits and interviews with store workers could lead to criminal charges or fines. And they appeared to open a new front in Trump's expansion of immigration enforcement, which has already brought a 40 percent increase in deportation arrests and pledges to spend billions of dollars on a border wall with Mexico.

A top official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the audits were "the first of many" and "a harbinger of what's to come" for employers.

"This is what we're gearing up for this year and what you're going to see more and more of is these large-scale compliance inspections, just for starters," said Derek Benner, acting head of ICE's Homeland Security Investigations, which oversees cases against employers.

"It's not going to be limited to large companies or any particular industry — big, medium and small," he said.

After the inspections, officials plan to look at whether the cases warrant administrative action or criminal investigations, Benner told The Associated Press.

7-Eleven Stores Inc., based in Irving, Texas, said in a statement that the owners of its franchises are responsible for hiring and verifying work eligibility. The chain with more than 8,600 convenience stores in the U.S. said it has previously ended franchise agreements for owners convicted of breaking employment laws.

Unlike other enforcement efforts that have marked Trump's first year in office, Wednesday's actions were aimed squarely at store owners and managers, though 21 workers across the country were arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally.

Illegal hiring is rarely prosecuted, partly because investigations are time-consuming and convictions are difficult to achieve because employers can claim they were duped by fraudulent documents or intermediaries. Administrative fines are discounted by some as a business cost.

Amy Peck, an Omaha, Nebraska, immigration attorney who represents businesses, said an employer crackdown will never work because the government has limited resources and there are many jobs that people who are in the country legally do not want.

"When these audits occur, the employees scatter in the wind and go down the street and work for somebody else," Peck said. "You're playing whack-a-mole."

President George W. Bush's administration pursued high-profile criminal investigations against employers in its final years with dramatic pre-dawn shows of force and large numbers of worker arrests. In 2008, agents arrived by helicopter at the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, and detained nearly 400 workers. Last month, Trump commuted the 27-year prison sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, former chief executive of what was the nation's largest kosher meatpacking operation.

President Barack Obama's administration more than doubled employer audits to more than 3,100 a year in 2013, shunning Bush's flashier approach. John Sandweg, an acting ICE director under Obama, said significant fines instilled fear in employers and avoided draining resources from other enforcement priorities, which include child exploitation, human trafficking and money laundering.

Wednesday's audits arose from a 2013 investigation that resulted in charges against nine 7-Eleven franchisees and managers in New York and Virginia. Eight have pleaded guilty and were ordered to pay more than $2.6 million in back wages, and the ninth was arrested in November.

The managers used more than 25 stolen identities to employ at least 115 people in the country illegally, knowing they could pay below minimum wage, according to court documents.

Neither 7-Eleven nor its parent company, Seven & I Holding Co. based in Tokyo, was charged in the case.

Julie Myers Wood, former head of ICE during the Bush administration, said the most recent inspections showed that immigration officials were focusing on a repeat violator. Part of the problem, Wood said, is the lack of "a consistent signal" between administrations that the U.S. government will prosecute employers who hire immigrants without legal status.

Some immigration hardliners have been pressing Trump to move against employers. Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, said the inspections offered "a good sign" that the administration was serious about going after employers. But, he said, the administration would need to go beyond audits.

"It's important for Trump to show that they're not just arresting the hapless schmo from Honduras but also the politically powerful American employer," he said.

States with 7-Eleven stores targeted Wednesday were California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.

In Los Angeles' Koreatown, agents gathered in a grocery store parking lot and drove through side streets in unmarked cars to their target location.

The manager was in Bangladesh and the owner, reached by phone, told the clerk to accept whatever documents were served. The clerk told agents he had no knowledge of documents required to prove eligibility to work and was asked to pass along brochures for voluntary programs aimed at better compliance with immigration laws.

"We need to make sure that employers are on notice that we are going to come out and ensure that they're being compliant," Benner said. "For those that don't were going to take some very aggressive steps in terms of criminal investigations to make sure that we address them and hold them accountable."

SURPRISE, SURPRISE. IT WASN'T CLIMATE CHANGE, OR GLOBAL WARMING OR WHATEVER THE HELL THEY ARE CALLING IT THIS WEEK.


US cold snap was a freak of nature, quick analysis finds
http://www.yahoo.com

FILE - In this Jan. 7, 2018, file photo, fishing trawlers sit on the frozen harbor of Lake Montauk surrounded by thin sheets of ice in Montauk, N.Y. A quick study of the brutal American cold snap found that the Arctic blast really was a freak of nature. Climate change wasn’t a factor but it is making such frigid weather spells much rarer. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consider this cold comfort: A quick study of the brutal American cold snap found that the Arctic blast really wasn't global warming but a freak of nature.

Frigid weather like the two-week cold spell that began around Christmas is 15 times rarer than it was a century ago, according to a team of international scientists who does real-time analyses to see if extreme weather events are natural or more likely to happen because of climate change.

The cold snap that gripped the East Coast and Midwest region was a rarity that bucks the warming trend, said researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the private organization Climate Central.

The same team had connected several weather events last year to man-made global warming including Hurricane Harvey that battered the U.S. and Caribbean and the French floods.

"It was very definitely strange, especially now," said study co-author Gabriel Vecchi of Princeton University. A century ago "it wouldn't have been that strange. Things like this are becoming stranger."

The study by the World Weather Attribution analyzed weather records dating back to 1880 and found the cold weather that hit a swath of the U.S. from Maine to Minnesota tends to happen once every 250 years. In the early 1900s, it happened about once every 17 years. Climate change has made such cold spells less common and less intense, the group said.

That finding agrees with earlier studies, said University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, who wasn't part of the study.

"I think the public frenzy over the recent cold snap illustrated that we are less acclimated to such events," he said in an email.

The study, based on observations and statistics, did not find evidence for a popular scientific theory that links melting Arctic sea ice to blasts of cold air escaping the top of the world.

The theory, which is still debated by scientists but gaining credence among many, is based on pressure changes and other factors that cause the jet stream to plunge and weather systems to get stuck. But the latest analysis didn't find such evidence.

Three scientists whose studies have connected Arctic warming to changes in extreme events disagree.

Because such atmospheric pressure changes happen occasionally, quick studies that rely on averages miss extreme events like the recent cold spell, said James Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who supports the theory.

Dow jumps 100 points to record, led by Boeing and other big economic growth plays
www.cnbc.com


The Dow Jones industrial average rose to an all-time high on Thursday as investors bet economic growth would pick up steam.

The index rose 100 points to a record high, led by Boeing, General Electric and Caterpillar. These names stand to benefit the most if economic growth ratches up.

The Nasdaq composite also hit a record high, as shares of Apple gained 0.3 percent. The S&P 500 gained 0.3 percent, with energy and industrials as the best-performing sectors.

The major averages rebounded from losses posted in the previous session.The S&P 500 and Nasdaq snapped a six-day winning streak on Wednesday. Investors fretted over the possibility of China halting its Treasury bond purchases and the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA.

"Ever since last summer, we've really struggled to have a meaningful pullback," said Andy Kapyrin, director of research at RegentAtlantic. Kapyrin also said there is optimism about the global synchronous economic recovery and the upcoming earnings season.

Trader working on the floor of the New York Stock ExchangeAndrew Burton | Getty Images Trader working on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange
Delta Air Lines reported adjusted earnings that surpassed analyst expectations, sending the company's stock 1.5 percent higher. Homebuilder KB Home also posted a better-than-expected quarterly profit; the stock rose 9.1 percent.

BlackRock, J.P. Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo are all scheduled to report Friday. Earnings are expected to have grown by 10.6 percent during the fourth quarter, according to S&P Capital IQ.

Analyst and investors will be looking for clues about how the recent changes to the U.S. tax code will impact each company. President Donald Trump signed a bill last month that slashed the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent.

"On a static basis, the [Joint Committee on Taxation] expects the rate reduction to lower the corporate tax bill by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years," said Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research, in a note this week. "That's a nice chunk of change, but it's not the complete picture."

"The tax rate that companies actually pay may be lower, or even higher, than 21% depending on other tax adjustments," Yardeni said.

In economic news, U.S. producer prices fell for the first time in more than a year. Treasury yields pared gains following the data release, but the 10-year yield remained close to its highest levels since March.

In corporate news, Walmart said it will raise its starting wage to $11 per hour and will give some employees bonuses following the tax-bill passage.

IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF PRESIDENT TRUMP!


Economists Credit Trump as Tailwind for U.S. Growth, Hiring and Stocks
www.wsj.com

President Donald Trump gestures speaks at the annual American Farm Bureau Federation conference in Nashville, Tenn., on Monday.
President Donald Trump gestures speaks at the annual American Farm Bureau Federation conference in Nashville, Tenn., on Monday. Photo: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg News

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal say President Donald Trump has had generally positive effects on U.S. economic growth, hiring and the performance of the stock market during his first year in office.

The professional forecasters also predicted 2018 would see solid growth and a continued decline in the jobless rate. One factor: the tax cuts signed into law by Mr. Trump in December, which most economists say will boost the economy for several years at least.

More broadly, most forecasters surveyed by the Journal suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit for the economy’s recent strength.

Asked to rate Mr. Trump’s policies and actions to date, a majority of economists said he had been somewhat or strongly positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the stock market. Most also said he had been either neutral or positive for the country’s long-term growth trajectory, while his influence on financial stability was seen as largely neutral.

“There is definitely a sense in the business community that the president’s actions on taxes and regulations have led to a more pro-growth environment for them to operate,” said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Still, it is early yet to evaluate Mr. Trump’s performance. He inherited an economy that had already experienced years of falling unemployment and durable if slow growth.

“We have to be cautious about giving Trump too much credit for the economy’s strength,” said Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group. “Job creation and business capital spending were on the rise prior to his presidency. The jury is still out how much more his actions moved the economy forward.”

A year ago, President Barack Obama got mixed grades as he prepared to leave office after eight years. Most economists surveyed by the Journal in January 2017 saw his policies as positive for financial stability, positive or neutral for job creation, negative or neutral for GDP growth and negative for long-term potential growth.

Looking forward, the economists surveyed in recent days had high hopes for 2018.

On average, the forecasters predicted GDP would expand a healthy 2.7% this year. They saw the unemployment rate, which was 4.1% in December, falling to 3.9% by midyear and 3.8% in December. The pace of hiring was expected to slow further, with monthly nonfarm payroll gains set to average 165,000 in 2018. Monthly job gains averaged 171,000 in 2017 and 187,000 in 2016, according to the Labor Department.

The probability of a recession in the next 12 months ticked down in January to 13%, the lowest average since September 2015. More than two-thirds of forecasters said they saw the risks to the growth outlook as tilted to the upside.

One reason for the rosy 2018 forecasts: a package of tax-law changes enacted last month. More than 90% of economists said the tax cuts would increase GDP growth over the next two years, similar to their thinking in earlier months when the details of the legislation were still in flux.

Still, economists aren’t confident the boost will prove long-lived. They on average expected GDP growth would ease to 2.2% in 2019 and 2% in 2020, and identified 2.1% as its long-run average. Half of economists said the tax legislation will boost the economy’s long-run trend at least modestly, while the other half said it would have no effect or leave growth somewhat below its current trajectory.

“The corporate tax cut has the theoretical potential of increasing trend rate, but I am skeptical if there is that much of pent-up investment demand left unfulfilled,” said Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University’s Economic Forecasting Center.

Policy makers have debated who will reap the benefits of one major tax provision—reducing the U.S. corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%.

White House economists have said workers should see higher incomes as a result of the tax cut while a 2012 Treasury analysis found most of the corporate-tax burden falls on owners of capital, not workers.

Roughly three in four economists surveyed by the Journal said shareholders, not employees, would see the larger benefit from the corporate-tax cut. “We’ll still see much of the earnings go to stock buybacks, raise dividends or help finance” mergers and acquisitions, Mr. Baumohl said.

The Journal’s survey of 68 academic, business and financial economists was conducted Jan. 5-9, though not every economist answered every question.

Write to Ben Leubsdorf at [email protected]

Nope, not tired of all the winning yet. Thank you, Mr. President!

Fiat Chrysler to invest more than $1 billion in Michigan plant and give $2,000 bonuses in response to tax reform

Fiat Chrysler announced Thursday that it will up its investment in the United States and pay some of its employees special bonuses after the recent tax code overhaul.

CEO Sergio Marchionne said in a statement that these announcements reflect the company's ongoing commitment to manufacturing in the U.S. He also cited the recently signed tax bill as an opportunity to share the savings with Fiat Chrysler employees.

The automaker said it will invest more than $1 billion in a Michigan plant and relocate production of its Ram Heavy Duty truck in 2020. That model is currently being produced in Saltillo, Mexico.

Fiat Chrysler said this decision would create about 2,500 jobs in addition to the ones that have been previously announced.

The company said it will also pay 60,000 of its U.S. employees bonuses of $2,000 each. Fiat Chrysler said these bonuses would not include senior leadership.

my late father served as a living object lesson on the dangers of eating poorly [diabetes, morbid obesity] early on. I think that somehow, school kids could possibly benefit from seeing something akin to "scared straight," ["scared healthy?"] only involving visiting hospitals where morbidly obese people are suffering and dying prematurely, getting carved on in the operating room for aneurisms and clogged arteries and such.