Funny events in anti-woke world

[Cicada 5]

Didn't people vote for Kamala for her horrible policies?

You've yet to explain how these policies are even bad.

Viral Claims About Project 2025 Are Mostly False

The recommendations aimed at shaping policy in a GOP administration do not include banning abortion or contraceptives.

thedispatch.com

Or just try to find this stuff on the pages they cite, most of this stuff isn't there.

Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families”: Partly false
The plan calls on the secretary of Health and Human Services to repeal policies that subsidize single motherhood, but it does not “condemn” single mothers. It does promote traditional family structures, however.
“For the sake of child well-being, programs should affirm that children require and deserve both the love and nurturing of a mother and the play and protection of a father,” Severino writes.



Eliminates federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more: Partly false
There are no calls to eliminate the FDA or EPA in their respective sections of the document. In a chapter on the Department of Commerce, however, author Thomas Gilman argues that the president should consider whether “The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”



Raise prescription drug prices: Partly false
The report’s section on FDA policy calls for the repeal of a Medicare price negotiation program created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that allows Medicare to directly negotiate the prices of certain high-expenditure drugs that don’t have generic versions. Other price control measures established by the IRA, such as a cost-sharing cap on insulin and an out-of-pocket spending cap for Part D enrollees, would be canceled if the IRA were fully repealed as advocated in the plan. However, the plan also encourages repealing laws that prevent pharmaceutical competition, which it argues would expand the availability of generic drugs and drive prescription drug prices down.



End civil rights and DEI protections in government: Partly false
Several sections of the plan argue for curtailing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations in government offices, but there is no call to end civil rights protections.
In his chapter on the Department of Justice (DOJ), Gene Hamilton writes that the department should spearhead “an initiative demonstrating the federal government’s commitment to nondiscrimination.” He adds: “The department should also lead a whole-of-government recommitment to nondiscrimination and should be working with all other federal agencies, boards, and commissions to ensure that they are both complying with constitutional and legal requirements and using their authorities and funding to prevent discrimination not only internally, but also at the state, local, and private-sector levels.”

Some of these "partly falses" seem contradictory. And the article does indeed confirm that the project proposes eliminating the Department of Education.

 

[Trunkage]

Some of these "partly falses" seem contradictory. And the article does indeed confirm that the project proposes eliminating the Department of Education.

Well, it actually says it's just going to underfund it so it doesn't work. They don't really want to waste their time drumming up the super majority just to get rid of the DoE....

Or maybe they do. It's a really bad idea to think that anything and everything is off the table. Just as it is a bad idea to try to predict what Trump will do. He usually makes it up on the spot, so even he doesn't even know

 

[Agema]

Or maybe they do. It's a really bad idea to think that anything and everything is off the table. Just as it is a bad idea to try to predict what Trump will do. He usually makes it up on the spot, so even he doesn't even know

No they will almost certainly not can the DoE. Governments like power. For the most part, a government is rarely going to give up the means by which it could intervene if it wanted to. It can deregulate and empower entities to do as they please, but that's not necessarily the same as giving up power, or potential, over them.

Trump is not the issue here. Trump wants to be president, not to do the job of president. He wants to float around, give orders, command respect and obedience. His only ambition is self-aggrandisement - adulation and wealth. What really needs to be considered are what all his cabinet and all sorts of other appointees will do, because they are the ones with the ambition, work ethic, ideology and maybe talent to get anything done. Trump mostly won't pay much attention to any of it unless it causes him some bother that might give him negative rep.

 

[thebobmaster]

Perfection.

The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction

The satirical newspaper plans to shutter Jones’ InfoWars and rebuild the website featuring well-known internet humor writers and content creators, according to a person with knowledge of the sale.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've yet to explain how these policies are even bad.





Some of these "partly falses" seem contradictory. And the article does indeed confirm that the project proposes eliminating the Department of Education.

UNrealized gains tax is horrible, just google it. The housing plan would make houses more expensive and the president doesn't have control over what actually causes supply issues like local zoning laws. Price controls have been done in the past and only make things worse (FDR and Nixon).

So you mean there's nuance to a lot things vs something being the worst thing ever? Like I said, simply go to the pages cited for the most horrible things Project 2025 is claimed to have, and you won't find it on the pages. Stuff like cut social security or medicare for example. And several the complaints about getting rid of agencies is just them making said agency part of another bigger agency vs it's own separate thing. It's a shit-ton of misinformation in those social media posts.

Well, it actually says it's just going to underfund it so it doesn't work. They don't really want to waste their time drumming up the super majority just to get rid of the DoE....

Or maybe they do. It's a really bad idea to think that anything and everything is off the table. Just as it is a bad idea to try to predict what Trump will do. He usually makes it up on the spot, so even he doesn't even know

They've been wanting to get rid of the Department of Education forever (you guys are acting like it's some new evil thing when it's not). With how bad schooling has gotten in the US, it might not be a bad idea. I'd have to look into more to have an actual opinion on whether it would be good or not to get rid of it. There's probably a bunch of nuance to it that is always ignored and people don't actually look into it.

 

[Chimpzy]

Perfection.

The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction

The satirical newspaper plans to shutter Jones’ InfoWars and rebuild the website featuring well-known internet humor writers and content creators, according to a person with knowledge of the sale.

www.nbcnews.com

Fitting and genuinely funny

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Fitting and genuinely funny

I'm calling it now: the Trump administration is gonna offer him a position. Have they already named a press secretary?

 

[Silvanus]

UNrealized gains tax is horrible, just google it.

I'm assuming you think this is terrible because of a misconception that it obligates people to sell. Am I wrong? That was the misconception last time this was discussed.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm assuming you think this is terrible because of a misconception that it obligates people to sell. Am I wrong? That was the misconception last time this was discussed.

Analysis of Harris’s Billionaire Minimum Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains

In her campaign for president, VP Kamala Harris has embraced all the tax increases President Biden proposed in the White House FY 2025 budget—including a new idea that would require taxpayers with net wealth above $100 million to pay a minimum tax on their unrealized capital gains from assets...

taxfoundation.org

 

[Bedinsis]

Perfection.

The Onion wins Alex Jones' Infowars in bankruptcy auction

The satirical newspaper plans to shutter Jones’ InfoWars and rebuild the website featuring well-known internet humor writers and content creators, according to a person with knowledge of the sale.

www.nbcnews.com

Didn't he claim Info Wars was satire in a court of law?

Meaning this is technically another example of media conglomeration. Even in the world of satire outlets.

 

[Silvanus]

Analysis of Harris’s Billionaire Minimum Tax on Unrealized Capital Gains

In her campaign for president, VP Kamala Harris has embraced all the tax increases President Biden proposed in the White House FY 2025 budget—including a new idea that would require taxpayers with net wealth above $100 million to pay a minimum tax on their unrealized capital gains from assets...

taxfoundation.org

The Tax Foundation has a long history of opposing any reasonable taxes on big business. Of course they would hate it.

 

[Schadrach]

The Tax Foundation has a long history of opposing any reasonable taxes on big business. Of course they would hate it.

At the same time, an unrealized gains tax is probably not a good choice. Taxing someone on what someone else might hypothetically pay for property they own if they were to sell it is an issue. Since the whole point of wanting to tax unrealized gains is to tax people who are essentially using various financial instruments to be able to use gains without technically realizing them. It feels like it would be better targeted to tax those financial instruments, even if in some cases it paradoxically means taxing debt.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The Tax Foundation has a long history of opposing any reasonable taxes on big business. Of course they would hate it.

So you just don't like them because you don't agree with them, got it. I'll take their opinion on taxes for more than yours. They aren't even conservative leaning or anything.

 

[Hades]

Its never funny per se when people die but....come on this is real life acting like a script.

A bolsonaro loony tried bombing the Brazilian supreme court today...only for the bomb he threw to bounce off the building and blow the terrorist up instead. A fascist wanting to take out the rule of law only for the justice building to kill him is.....well its quite ironic at least.

 

[Silvanus]

So you just don't like them because you don't agree with them, got it. I'll take their opinion on taxes for more than yours. They aren't even conservative leaning or anything.

They're nonpartisan, but they're fiscally biased; they'll condemn anything that aims to raise taxes on big business. If you accept the premise that taxing big business is bad, then of course taxing unrealised gains is going to be bad.

I don't accept that premise. If you do, fine. But don't pretend that a tax on unrealised gains is particularly bad unless you do accept that premise to begin with.

 

[Silvanus]

At the same time, an unrealized gains tax is probably not a good choice. Taxing someone on what someone else might hypothetically pay for property they own if they were to sell it is an issue. Since the whole point of wanting to tax unrealized gains is to tax people who are essentially using various financial instruments to be able to use gains without technically realizing them. It feels like it would be better targeted to tax those financial instruments, even if in some cases it paradoxically means taxing debt.

There's a question of how to judge the value, but that's not much of a bigger issue than for regular capital gains. There are reliable methods of coming to an official valuation based on the market. It's a bigger problem for such enormous wealth to sit in unutilised or underutilised assets.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They're nonpartisan, but they're fiscally biased; they'll condemn anything that aims to raise taxes on big business. If you accept the premise that taxing big business is bad, then of course taxing unrealised gains is going to be bad.

I don't accept that premise. If you do, fine. But don't pretend that a tax on unrealised gains is particularly bad unless you do accept that premise to begin with.

They have legit criticisms vs it's just bad because we like business. I don't really like the idea of something highly volatile being taxed on gains when you never actually got the gains (they can then go down massively too). Houses have property taxes and that's similar as the taxes increases with the value (when you haven't sold yet obvious) but the value increases with very little risk.

 

[Silvanus]

They have legit criticisms vs it's just bad because we like business.

Most of the specific criticisms they come up with in that article are bunk.

"It's never been tried" -- so the fuck what?
"how to treat illiquid taxpayers who may have paper gains but lack cash on hand to pay their minimum tax bill" -- we're talking about people with wealth over $100 million. If someone holds that much wealth and yet doesn't have enough money to pay a modest tax, then they should be pushed out of that position anyway.

I don't really like the idea of something highly volatile being taxed on gains when you never actually got the gains (they can then go down massively too).

So they might end up getting taxed a bit more or less than the ultimate value of the asset. I don't much care. It's better than them being taxed nothing on it, for years and years, as it sits unutilised.

 

[thebobmaster]

Fitting and genuinely funny

Oh, it gets even better. Can you say karmic jackpot?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Most of the specific criticisms they come up with in that article are bunk.

"It's never been tried" -- so the fuck what?
"how to treat illiquid taxpayers who may have paper gains but lack cash on hand to pay their minimum tax bill" -- we're talking about people with wealth over $100 million. If someone holds that much wealth and yet doesn't have enough money to pay a modest tax, then they should be pushed out of that position anyway.



So they might end up getting taxed a bit more or less than the ultimate value of the asset. I don't much care. It's better than them being taxed nothing on it, for years and years, as it sits unutilised.

More than that.