Trump outrage of the day

[GuitarStv]

Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?

[OtherJen]

Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?

I'm obviously not bacchi, but probably both. The Trump White House is basically a temp agency.

[bacchi]

Defense Secretary Esper contradicted Trump's tweets about bombing cultural sites.

I'm giving him 2 weeks.

Esper as Defense Secretary, or Trump before he bombs cultural sites?

I'm obviously not bacchi, but probably both. The Trump White House is basically a temp agency.

I meant Esper but, now that you mention it, it is both. Trump will go through the ranks until some flunkie agrees with him.

Friends? We don't need friends.

[talltexan]

Who among us has not sent a draft of a policy statement to a foreign goverment that was hosting our military?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjl2__UzfHmAhXEnOAKHYAAAhQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnational-security%2Fonce-a-policy-afterthought-iraq-becomes-a-problem-for-trump-administration%2F2020%2F01%2F06%2Fc986c482-30bf-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html&usg=AOvVaw1RdCU-svRrEKn6Waqcihtt

[nereo]

Who among us has not sent a draft of a policy statement to a foreign goverment that was hosting our military?

So embarrassing when that happens to me!

One trend I've noticed with this administration is how ludicrous the initial explanations frequently are. Often it takes less than one news cycle/day for the supposed rationale to be complete destroyed, and then they move on as if it were never suggested.  A sure sign that they are reacting to decisions made without a lot of coordination rather than having a cohesive, coordinated plan that looks towards the future.

[talltexan]

Having "ludicrous" initial expectations is basically the #1 negotiating tactic according to Art of the Deal

[nereo]

Having "ludicrous" initial expectations is basically the #1 negotiating tactic according to Art of the Deal

well there's having ludicrous expectations for a negotiation, and then there's giving ludicrous explanations for what happened.  Curremtly its "there was a severe and imminent threat.... but we are unble to say what that was and our intelligence agencies are out of the loop so don't ask them"

[rantk81]

I've come around to the thought that "it just doesn't matter anymore."

His supporters have blind faith. It doesn't matter what the administration does.  Absolutely nothing will change their (supporters) minds.

How do you defeat that? I don't think it's even possible.

The "I could get away with shooting someone on 5th avenue" comment was pretty on-point.

[FIPurpose]

Remember when GOP thought that the killing of Gaddafi was a bad idea. Those were good times.

[nereo]

I've come around to the thought that "it just doesn't matter anymore."

His supporters have blind faith. It doesn't matter what the administration does.  Absolutely nothing will change their (supporters) minds.

How do you defeat that? I don't think it's even possible.

The "I could get away with shooting someone on 5th avenue" comment was pretty on-point.

IMO the best method is to win governorships and the legislatures. 2018 was an historically bad year for the GOP, and only gerrymandering and a favorable cycle helped them hold the senate while getting schelaced in the House.

‘The Basement - whether you are referring to Trump or any Dem is not enough to sustain office. Fear and voter restrictions might... for another cycle or two. But the slow trend of demographics is currently working against this version of the GOP

Politics seems entrenched when “the other guy” occupies the WH or is speaker. But it has been less than three years, and already the house is with Pelosi. Maybe the current status quo will be sustained for another three or possibly even five years. But history and current trends argue against any longer than that, and possibly only for another year. Carter wasn’t re-elected in large part to (ha) Iran. Bush Sr saw the economy go south along with his poll numbers. Trump is currently worse off than either at this point in his Presidency. Clinton was enormously popular at the end of his second term but that wasn’t enough to push Gore over the finish line. And there seems to be an immutable law that whenever one party gains a majority somewhere they overstep and lose favor with many voters. Which brings us back to: the base is never enough.

[OtherJen]

So much winning. From The NY Times: American Consumers, Not China, Are Paying for Trump’s Tariffs

“U.S. tariffs continue to be almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers,” Mary Amiti, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, wrote in a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper. The other authors of the paper were David E. Weinstein of Columbia University and Stephen J. Redding of Princeton.

Examining the fallout of tariffs in data through October, the authors found that Americans had continued paying for the levies — which increased substantially over the course of the year. Their paper, which is an update on previous research, found that “approximately 100 percent” of import taxes fell on American buyers.

The United States and China have reached a trade truce and are expected to sign an initial deal this month, but tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods will remain in place.

[nereo]

Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

[GuitarStv]

Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

[nereo]

Maybe we can reframe Warren's 'Wealth Tax' as a tariff on health-income individuals that Iran will pay for?

[OtherJen]

Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

^^^ This.

[talltexan]

Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

It's not that a lot of Republicans suddenly think trade barriers are good. It's that they believe the tariffs are a short-term way to make China feel pain and bring them to the negotiating table.

[FIPurpose]

Tariffs are taxes paid by the consumers who buy the item.  Until recently even the conservative lower-taxation groups repeated this fact night and day. 

How people could possibly believe otherwise is a mystery to me.  The tariff's collected on Chinese goods are collected by the US Customs and Boarder Protection once they reach the port of debarkation (inside the United States), and the monies go to the US Treasury department.  The person that pays the tariff is the US-based importer (or consumer).

You would have to be pretty stupid to not understand this.  The kind of stupid who would think that Mexico would pay for the US to build a border wall.

It's not that a lot of Republicans suddenly think trade barriers are good. It's that they believe the tariffs are a short-term way to make China feel pain and bring them to the negotiating table.

Sure but to negotiate what? The a trade negotiation that we basically already had? That would be very Trumpian, so I guess that's the goal. Call Obama deals dumb, throw whatever goodwill you have, burn it down until country is ready to finally talk, make basically same deal as Obama/worse.

If we wanted to sanction China for the treatment of the Uighurs, I could see that as reasonable.But if the US doesn't like China's trade, there's 3 dozen other countries in Asia (and the EU, South America, Australia) we can do that business with.

[DaMa]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

[MasterStache]

So it looks like The Trump Administration briefed a bunch of Republican Senators on Iran, basically telling them not to support the Kaine proposal. The result is they managed to convince two Republican Senators, Mike Lee and Rand Paul to support the proposal. Apparently they didn't appreciate being treated like children. Who would have thunk it, Trump despises anything that curbs/checks his dictator powers.   

[ysette9]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

I work in consumer electronics and our products are impacted by tariffs. So, the supply chain is shifting to lower-cost Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand. This was probably going to happen anyway as China gets richer, but this really pushed the timeline up.

For those who thought the tariffs were a good idea, how were the businesses supposed to react to them? Did anyone think the work would move to the US?

[OtherJen]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

I work in consumer electronics and our products are impacted by tariffs. So, the supply chain is shifting to lower-cost Asian countries like Vietnam and Thailand. This was probably going to happen anyway as China gets richer, but this really pushed the timeline up.

For those who thought the tariffs were a good idea, how were the businesses supposed to react to them? Did anyone think the work would move to the US?

From the Trump fans in my acquaintance, either they thought the tariffs would mean more US jobs, or that we were really sticking it to China. The reasoning is about as logical as the decision-making process that led to the tariffs.

[ysette9]

I know no one here is arguing otherwise, but I thought I should reiterate for the record that the jobs I saw in China are not ones that Americans are likely to choose to do. Heck, they can’t keep Chinese workers on the line for more than a year at a time.

[nereo]

They aren’t jobs Americans want and, more importantly, these jobs can’t exist in the US as they do elsewhere.  Employee safety (ie OSHA), labor standards, pay, etc are more favorable to the worker in the US. Many here work a “nine to five”. In China there is the 9-9-6 (9am to 9pm, six days per week). That’s a 72 hour work week, without overtime. These jobs cannot legally be done in the US without fundamentally changing how they are done. Which will raise the labor costs considerably for all.

[nereo]

I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?

[talltexan]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

[talltexan]

I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?

A full accounting of this episode can only be done once we know what will be the posture of US forces within Iraq. Will there be more than before or fewer?

[GuitarStv]

I’m still trying to process these latest events with Iran

What everyone agrees on is that, on trumps orders, we used a drone strike assasinate an Iranian general. Trump then threatened to use military stiles should Iran retaliate

The next day Iran launches. Over a dozen missiles at two bases in Iraq. Early warning systems and likely Iran resulted in no casualties, yet some infrastructure destroyed. Trump then seemed satisfied despite his (hours earlier) threats

What just happened?  Did Iran manufacture a peaceful way out for all, despite trump? Did Trump come to realize with these strikes that Iran could in fact hit U.S. targets with procession and with little advanced planning? Why strike those bases - was this truly just a way of saving face or was there some greater strategic importance of those targets? Are we close or further away from more armed conflict with Iran now than we were a week ago? Does this administration actively want a war or do they want to avoid a war, even if it means surrendering bases and getting kicked out of countries?

Trump put Iran in a difficult spot.  They couldn't do nothing . . . because if they did it was tacit acknowledgement that they're OK with assassinations of their countrymen by the President at whim.  But they couldn't directly attack US personnel, because that would certainly result in a war that they don't want and would lose.  I think they did the only thing they could . . . which is token destruction of US stuff but not people.  This way they have loudly registered their disapproval of Trump's action, but given the president a chance to back down from the escalation he created.

Iran was pretty politically fractured before.  There was a large contingent of people who were arguing for peace with the US and an end to hostilities.  They were the group who were pushing for the nuclear arms deal that Obama signed.  Trump's actions have silenced them for now and into the foreseeable future, and united Iran in hatred of America.  He has ensured that the anti-US voices are loudest in the country, which makes it certain that Iran will actively work against US interests at every future opportunity.  Unless Trump attacks Iran (again), I suspect that you will probably hear little of the country until the 2020 elections . . . which is all this administration cares about.

Iran was helping them fight and control ISIS . . . who were brought to power by the US deposing Saddam and then leaving the area.  Sulmani was leading this effort.  If the US pulls out of the area again, I suspect that we'll see ISIS rise up.  Nobody seems particularly interested in stepping up to fix this US made problem, given the way the US has systematically alienated all it's allies.

[talltexan]

Oh, I think we will continue to hear plenty about Iran.

[Just Joe]

I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.

[nereo]

I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.

Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.

[partgypsy]

I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.

Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.

Interesting.

[nereo]

I'm actually quite impressed that Iran managed to miss all the personnel on the bases in Iraq and I do think it was on purpose so to save face as Nereo detailed.

I could even imagine some back channel discussion allowing both sides to cooperate and save face.

Scuttlebutt is, that's largely what happened.  The US got advanced warning of which bases were being targeted by the Iraqi's, who in turn were told by the Iranians.  Base forces had 1-2 hours to move personnel elsewhere - enough time to save lives and portable equipment but not enough to do much else.

Interesting.

For context:
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/477284-us-had-advance-warning-of-iranian-missile-assault-report

"...an Iranian verbal warning of the incoming strikes tipped off Iraqi officials, who informed U.S. commanders that the Iranian attack was underway"

The advanced missile warning system would have given troops about 15-20 minutes once they were launched given the distance (under 100 miles), but it's becoming plainly evident that we had "hours" of advanced notification.

[GuitarStv]

It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.

[caracarn]

It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.

Yes, who would have thought a few years ago that if I had to pick the President of the United States of the leader of Iran to be the responsible one.  I wonder if this equation also will be proven to work with North Korea?

[Kris]

It's a good thing the Iranians are responsible and don't want war.

Exactly.

When news came of Suleimani's assassination, I turned to my husband and said:

"And now, whether this descends into chaos depends on other world leaders, in particular Iran's, being more responsible and measured than Trump."

How fun for us that now it's our leader who's the unpredictable nutbag in the mix.

[OtherJen]

From BBC News: Iran 'mistakenly shot down Ukraine jet' - US media

Apparently CBS is claiming this. It seems incredibly irresponsible without further substantiation.

[bluebelle]

I guess I'm doing something wrong.....I didn't get a 90% return    :-)

[nereo]

Is that satire?
What the heck is a 409k?

How does it compare to my 403b?
:-P

[bluebelle]

Is that satire?
What the heck is a 409k?

How does it compare to my 403b?
:-P

given his past tweets, unfortunately, it isn't satire.....perhaps he hadn't had his covfefe when he tweeted it....and I guess 409Ks get 90% returns and lowly 401Ks get 10%....dunno

[talltexan]

If you got the match, you already had a 50% return. That 50% returned 31% in the market over 2019, so...81%, which is rounded up to 90%.

[GuitarStv]

Maybe he thinks Mexico is supposed to pay for your 90% return.

[Fireball]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".

[former player]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".

Agreed.  There's an industry near me (unnamed for anonymity purposes) which produces exactly the same amount of product as 100 years ago with 5% of the workers.  It's called productivity and it's what has made us all richer and more comfortable than our great grandparents.

[nereo]

My understanding is that tariffs are meant to protect our industries.  Add a tariff to a cheap import, so that the American-made product will be equal or lower cost.  But, do we have industries that make the stuff we buy from China?  In any case, the American consumer always pays the higher price.  The impact to China would be less sales in the US.  But since we don't have American made products, we just pay more for the same cheap imports.

When I first heard Trump talking about tariffs, I remember thinking, you are about 50 years too late for that to be effective.

This is not correct. The American Manufacturing sector produces a lot of stuff, and more stuff than it did during the 1990's. See https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OUTMS

What the American Manufacturing sector is not doing is employing very many workers.

I read something once that said US manufacturing output is roughly 3x what it was in the 80s, and they employ 50% as many people to do it. In the words of someone wiser than I, "those jobs aren't coming back".

Agreed.  There's an industry near me (unnamed for anonymity purposes) which produces exactly the same amount of product as 100 years ago with 5% of the workers.  It's called productivity and it's what has made us all richer and more comfortable than our great grandparents.

Coal is a good example of this.  Annual coal production (i.e. tons of coal mined) has increased pretty steadily over the past 150 years until the most recent decade, while the number of coal workers has plummeted since the 1970s.  In 1978  the US mined 670 million short tons of coal with 190,000 workers.  In 2008 (30 years later) coal hit a high-water mark of 1,172 million short tons, but with fewer than 80,000 workers.

In other words, there was more than a 2x increase in coal production with fewer than half the number of workers.  On a per-worker basis coal mining is >4x as productive as during the 1970s, even as the easiest deposits to mine have been depleted.

[LennStar]

Should Iran retaliate by attacking Americans, Trump will destroy 52 sites in Iran including cultural targets. Outrage of the day.

At some point we can start a new thread and call it War crime of the day...

Reminds me that the first time I heard about the Taliban (so long ago, still in school) was I think half a year before they attacked the towers. At this time they blew up some very old stone buddhas.

My thought at this was: Oh dear, there will be lots of trouble with those guys!
Because if your religion has gotten as bad as destroying world famous cultural objects just because a different religion made them, it means you are officially total nuts.

Well, no news on Trump here, but I still wanted to mention that. There are some things you just can't even think about doing if you are not completely irresonsible and, to talk jiddisch, meschuggo, and this includes destroying cultural sites.

Personally, I don't feel remotely qualified to judge if this was a good idea or not.

Well, I won't wager if it was a good idea or not (very likely a very bod one though), but speaking legally, Trump ordered the murder of a high state official on the (civilan) soil of a 3rd country.

It is not murder because he is the president. On the other hand that means that this is basically a decleration of war to two countries at once.

It sets a terrible precedent. We are now the "bad guys". 

Sorry to say that, but that train has departed at least half a century ago for most parts of the world.

On the airplane: I would be surprised if it was not an accidental shot down. And looking at the hesitance around the black boxes, I don't think I will be surprised - if the truth will actually be spoken.   

[nereo]

What struck me immediately was that Pompeo began his news conference by saying “East we did was 100% legal” ... before anyone had even voiced that concern

When your starting point is the legality - rather than the correctness - of an action, people should be skeptical about whether this was a good idea

[talltexan]

By the way, this is pretty much the case with nearly all of Trump's actions.

Firing Comey, citizenship question, withdrawing troops from Syria, …

It's always that he has that power, never whether it's a smart judgement to use that.

[PathtoFIRE]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Devin Nunes (R-CA) announces his intention to introduce legislation changing 26 US Code § 401 to § 409, simultaneously moving the current § 409 to § 401. The congressman from California explained, "The founding fathers had always intended for the section of the US code pertaining to qualified retirement plans to fall under subset 409, and I support President Trump and his administration's efforts to rectify this problem that the Democrat party has ignored for years."

[former player]

Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize

[talltexan]

I've often thought that Obama--if he could have somehow found the ability--would have gone back and arranged for that Nobel Peace Prize to go to someone else. Being a President meant wealth was assured already, and his political opponents could simply hit him with that prize and the fact he didn't deserve it.