Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

by **pacino** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 22:41:00

Youseff wrote:GOP votes to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics

https://twitter.com/i/moments/816098409295663104

They are ready to get to work.

by **Youseff** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 22:44:21

I miss the days where month long political scandals were about how rude Obama was when he said, "you didn't build that."

by **drsmooth** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 23:11:33

Youseff wrote:GOP votes to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics

https://twitter.com/i/moments/816098409295663104

congressional ethics, military intelligence, the new crowd's a bunch of oxymorons

by **JFLNYC** » Mon Jan 02, 2017 23:22:25

The Tank is in full swing!

#SaveTheSwamp

by **Youseff** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 02:22:34

@igorvolsky 4h4 hours ago
House Republicans held a secret vote during a secret meeting on a national holiday in order to eliminate their independent ethics watchdog

by **td11** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 06:20:38

The Republican party is bad for america

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 09:25:23

reforming government to make it work:

Now, the office would be under the thumb of lawmakers themselves. The proposal also appears to limit the scope of the office’s work by barring them from considering anonymous tips against lawmakers. And it would stop the office from disclosing the findings of some of their investigations, as they currently do after the recommendations go to House Ethics.

One of those was Rep. Blake Farenthold, the Texas Republican who was accused by a former staffer of sexual harassment. The OCE recommended in September 2015 that the Ethics panel drop a probe of the matter, but Farenthold did not like the way the case was handled. A court later threw out the staffers' lawsuit as well.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) also spoke in support of the measure. The Ethics Committee, at the behest of OCE, had probed whether Roskam accepted an impermissible gift when he and his wife traveled to Taiwan in October 2011. The Ethics Committee approved the Roskams’ trip beforehand as permissible under federal law, but OCE believed the Taiwanese government and not the Chinese Culture University — the official sponsor — “was conducting and organizing his trip.”

Reps. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) and Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) also vocally supported the amendment. They or their staff had come under OCE's microscope.

Democrats created the Office of Congressional Ethics in March 2008 after the Abramoff scandal, in which the well-connected GOP lobbyist plead guilty to conspiring to bribe public officials. Abramoff and his clients had used campaign donations and favors to sway members, including former Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), who served 30 months in prison, and a number of staffers.

Back in business, baby!

Now it's time to do the people's business, namely taking health insurance away from other people and gutting regulations designed to help working people at the behest of large multinational corporations.

by **JUburton** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 09:34:02

they can get to work now that this pesky 'ethics' office isn't there!

but really i hope this just means DOJ is extra vigilant and they reap what they sowed. at least paul ryan has spoken out against it i guess.

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 09:35:30

JUburton wrote:they can get to work now that this pesky 'ethics' office isn't there!

but really i hope this just means DOJ is extra vigilant and they reap what they sowed. at least paul ryan has spoken out against it i guess.

DOJ is going to be run by Senator Jeff Sessions.

by **JUburton** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 09:35:56

pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:they can get to work now that this pesky 'ethics' office isn't there!

but really i hope this just means DOJ is extra vigilant and they reap what they sowed. at least paul ryan has spoken out against it i guess.

DOJ is going to be run by Senator Jeff Sessions.

#draintheswamp

by **pacino** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:49:13

JUburton wrote:
pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:they can get to work now that this pesky 'ethics' office isn't there!

but really i hope this just means DOJ is extra vigilant and they reap what they sowed. at least paul ryan has spoken out against it i guess.

DOJ is going to be run by Senator Jeff Sessions.
#draintheswamp

this is secretly great for liberals. just think about it. zero power and seeing every advance rolled back is going to really be good for us.

by **jamiethekiller** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:02:24

is this a place to talk Philly's Soda Tax?

cause the implementation is and out and out disaster

by **slugsrbad** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:06:15

jamiethekiller wrote:is this a place to talk Philly's Soda Tax?

cause the implementation is and out and out disaster

Go on.

by **RichmondPhilsFan** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:14:31

pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:
pacino wrote:
JUburton wrote:they can get to work now that this pesky 'ethics' office isn't there!

but really i hope this just means DOJ is extra vigilant and they reap what they sowed. at least paul ryan has spoken out against it i guess.

DOJ is going to be run by Senator Jeff Sessions.
#draintheswamp

this is secretly great for liberals. just think about it. zero power and seeing every advance rolled back is going to really be good for us.

And we thought that the Democrats were bad at optics.

by **JUburton** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:20:03

jamiethekiller wrote:is this a place to talk Philly's Soda Tax?

cause the implementation is and out and out disaster

Yeah it seems retailers and/or distributors have no idea what is actually part of the tax (i.e. unsweetened almond milk specifically is not but has increased some places).

by **jamiethekiller** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:20:05

1. This has been touted as a way to get kids off of sugar drinks and into drinking healthier options(water). So what do they do? They made the tax on Liquid Volume and not Grams of Sugar. So a drink with MORE sugar in it, but at a lower volume of liquid, will have less tax applied to it than a larger drink. They have in essence put an incentive to drink high sugar/low volume drinks than something that might be more healthier but in a larger volume.

2. The tax is levied against the distributors and not against the consumer. I'm assuming they did this so its easier to collect taxes from a few places than chasing down their tax revenue every year from every single store in the city. But all they did was punish ALL consumers in the city. The Store/Market/Bodega is free to raise prices as they see fit. So a small corner store will be able to either raise only prices on all items and push their tax burden that way. Or they can stick to their morals and only raise the prices on sugar beverages the proper amount. What corner store is going to stay in business? the one who has an imperceptible increase across all products or the one who only raises the prices on their cash cow?

soo, it should have been a tax on gram per sugar. and it should be on the sole consumer and not on the distribution.

by **JUburton** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:22:38

yeah, those too. seems really poorly thought out. an example from reddit (which may be from philly.com idk):

Gatorade G2 Grape 8 pack
Size: 160 ounces
Sugary-drinks tax: YES
Grams of sugar: 96
Current price: $5.99
(With sales tax: $6.47)
Sugary-drinks tax: $2.40
New price: $8.39
(With sales tax: $8.87)
Grams of sugar per ounce: 0.6
Total cost per ounce: $0.18

Snapple Iced Tea - Lemon
Size: 20 ounces
Sugary-drinks tax: YES
Grams of sugar: 45
Current price: $1.29
Sugary-drinks tax: $0.30
New price: $1.59
Grams of sugar per ounce: 2.25
Total cost per ounce: $0.12

by **jamiethekiller** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:27:25

JUburton wrote:yeah, those too. seems really poorly thought out. an example from reddit (which may be from philly.com idk):

Gatorade G2 Grape 8 pack
Size: 160 ounces
Sugary-drinks tax: YES
Grams of sugar: 96
Current price: $5.99
(With sales tax: $6.47)
Sugary-drinks tax: $2.40
New price: $8.39
(With sales tax: $8.87)
Grams of sugar per ounce: 0.6
Total cost per ounce: $0.18

Snapple Iced Tea - Lemon
Size: 20 ounces
Sugary-drinks tax: YES
Grams of sugar: 45
Current price: $1.29
Sugary-drinks tax: $0.30
New price: $1.59
Grams of sugar per ounce: 2.25
Total cost per ounce: $0.12

philly.com ran those items but didn't do the bolded portion

by **jamiethekiller** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:31:37

between this and the whole SEPTA debacle i'm beyond peeved at the city

by **CFP** » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:41:41

Agree on all counts here. I'll likely cut my buying of these drinks in the city by about 80%.

Archived

Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics

Re: Putin The Donald in the White House - Politics