Who gives a shit. Ivanka left her company. Still would love to fuck her tits like her daddy wanted to.

 

Fucking scary.

Meet the hundreds of officials Trump has quietly installed

The Breitbart wing

Curtis Ellis was a columnist for WorldNetDaily, a website best known for its enthusiastic embrace of the false notion that President Obama was born outside the United States. A column headlined the “The Radical Left’s Ethnic Cleansing of America” won Ellis an admiring interview with Steve Bannon, now Trump’s top aide. He is a longtime critic of trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Ellis was hired Jan. 20 as a special assistant to the secretary at the Labor Department. Asked about his role in a brief phone interview Tuesday, he said: “Nothing I can tell you.”

Jon Perdue, a self-described guerrilla warfare expert and fellow at a little-known security think tank, wrote a book called “The War of All the People: The Nexus of Latin American Radicalism and Middle Eastern Terrorism.” He is also a onetime contributor to Breitbart.

Perdue was featured on CNBC’s reality series “Make Me a Millionaire Inventor” for his invention, the Packbow, which Perdue came up with while studying “collapsed societies, and what people who lived in those societies came up with to either defend themselves or to survive.” It’s a bow and arrow that doubles as a compass, tent pole, walking stick, spearfishing rig, and water purification tablet receptacle.

Perdue was hired as a special assistant at the Treasury Department. The agency didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
John Jaggers ran the Trump campaign in Maryland and Virginia, where he made headlines for endorsing the conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton was “very, very sick and they’re covering it up.” As he put it last August: “The woman who seeks to be the first female president of the United States wears a wool coat at every single thing. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? It’s a big deal, folks.”

Jaggers was hired Jan. 20 as senior adviser at the General Services Administration, which oversees tens of billions of dollars of government procurement every year. But records show he left the job on March 3. He declined to comment.

Swamp denizens, including health care lobbyists hired by HHS Secretary Tom Price

Alexandra Campau, hired at the department of Health and Human Services, was formerly a lobbyist in Washington for the law firm Cozen O’Connor. According to disclosure records, her firm’s clients included a licensee of insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Fresenius Medical Care, a German company that specializes in medical supplies for renal dialysis.

Timothy Clark, a senior adviser to HHS Secretary Tom Price, ran his own political consulting firm in California. His past clients included PhRMA, the powerful trade group that represents the pharmaceutical industry.

Keagan Lenihan, also a senior adviser to Price, was a director of government relations at McKesson Specialty Health, a firm that supports independent health providers. Disclosure records show Lenihan directly lobbied HHS. For Lenihan, the new post represents a return trip through the revolving door between government and the private sector, and a reunion with an old boss. Before registering as a lobbyist, she was a senior legislative assistant for Price, when the now-HHS secretary was in Congress.

Asked about the three HHS staffers, an agency spokeswoman said: “We are not confirming or commenting on personnel at this time.”

Justin Mikolay, hired at the Department of Defense, was previously a registered lobbyist for Palantir. His title at the tech firm was “evangelist.” Mikolay lobbied for the “procurement/deployment of the Palantir Government software platform” throughout intelligence and defense agencies, according to disclosure records.

Mikolay was a speechwriter to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta between 2011 and 2013, according to his LinkedIn profile. Mikolay also previously served as a speechwriter for current Secretary of Defense James Mattis. He declined to comment.

Chad Wolf, a Bush-era Transportation Security Administration official turned lobbyist, is currently serving as an adviser to the TSA at the Department of Homeland Security. His clients have included defense and homeland security contractors.

Reached Tuesday, Wolf declined to comment. George Rogers, CEO of Wolf’s lobbying firm, Wexler Walker, told ProPublica that Wolf is currently on unpaid leave.

As we’ve previously reported, lobbyists for the construction industry trade association and financial services firm TransAmerica are on the team at the Department of Labor.

Trump campaign vets — including very young ones

The list also includes what appear to be dozens of former Trump campaign staffers, including several who graduated from college last year. One, Danny Tiso at the Department of Labor, graduated from high school in 2015, according to his LinkedIn profile. He worked for the Trump campaign in New Hampshire.

Seth Harris, who was on the first Obama-Biden transition team and later became a top Labor Department official, said it’s not uncommon to bring in campaign staff to agencies — “as long as there are senior political people to direct the junior people.”

“This is how you incorporate the people who are your strongest supporters into the government,” he said. “There are plenty of junior jobs in the government that these people can do — public-affairs jobs, special assistant jobs.”

Meet the hundreds of officials Trump has quietly installed https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAo2qW0?m=en-us&ocid=News

 

How about your own article?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/08/private-sector-jobs-february-2017-adp.html

You don't think they were referring to Obama when they talked about "anticipating tax cuts" and "anticipating less regulation", do you?

 

I read the article.

You do realize 'anticipating' does not mean shit. There is no guarantee of anything.

President Obama had positive job growth over 7 years.

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.

 

You and @CS natureboy gloating over products produced in China. You two are verified retards.

 

Enjoy Trumpcare new mandate, oh I mean penalty.

Cost of being uninsured would rise for many under GOP plan

Republicans hate Obamacare's individual mandate. But their new replacement plan, which gets rid of that rule, could cost some Americans more money.

Financial penalties for not having health insurance coverage could be higher under the GOP's proposed Obamacare replacement for many people than they would be under Obamacare itself, a new analysis finds.

The analysis from the Avalere Health consultancy also finds that proposed new penalties — to be imposed on uninsured people signing up for insurance after a two-month gap in coverage — would hit older people and those with lower incomes the hardest.

On the other hand, younger people and those who earn more money would face lower penalties under the new plan.

For example, a 50-year-old earning $47,520 annually would pay just $465 for being uninsured for six months under Obamacare.

But that same person but would be on the hook for up to $1,991 in penalties under the Republicans' plan if they were uninsured for the same time period and then signed up for coverage, the analysis finds.

If that person ended up earning $118,800 the following year in income, and also had a six-month gap in coverage, their Obamacare penalty would be $2,414. But their fine under the GOP plan if they signed up for insurance could be as low as $1,006.

"The continuous coverage penalty" proposed by Republicans "functions much like today's individual mandate, but it increases penalties for lower-income and older individuals, and it reduces penalties for younger and wealthier people," said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere.

Obamacare's individual mandate currently requires most Americans to have some form of health coverage or face a potential tax penalty equal to the greater of $695 per adult, or 2.5 percent of household income.

Lower-income earners pay less in fines than those with higher incomes. And the fines are prorated based on the length of time a person is uninsured, with shorter gaps in coverage penalized at lower rates than longer gaps.

The plan proposed Monday by Republican leaders in Congress calls for ending that mandate, meaning that no one would pay a fine for lacking insurance. But the GOP's plan would impose a penalty on people signing up for health insurance after being uninsured for 63 days or more.

That penalty would be 30 percent of the monthly premium of the insurance plan selected by that person, and would last for 12 months, beginning in 2018. The penalty would not be prorated, meaning that someone with a three-month gap in coverage would pay the same penalty as someone with a 12-month gap if they signed up for the same insurance plan.

Avalere, in a report on its analysis, noted that "the penalty would be higher for older people and lower for younger people" because the health insurance premiums of individual insurance plans are age-adjusted, with older customers paying more.

A chart prepared by Avalere shows that for all uninsured 50-year-olds earning less than $71, 280 annually, the Republican penalty would be more expensive if they signed up for coverage than the cost of the current Obamacare penalty.

And because the Republican plan's penalty "is not tied to income," as Obamacare's penalty is, "low-income individuals will pay significantly more under" the GOP proposal than higher income earners.

Another Avalere chart showed how a 27-year-old person earning $35,640 annually would owe $695 in penalties under Obamacare for being uninsured for a full year.

That same person, if they sought to sign up under the Republican plan for coverage after year-long lapse, would owe $1,006 in penalties if they enrolled in the least expensive form of insurance, and $1,169 in penalties if they purchased the second-cheapest type of coverage.

Pearson noted that "the majority of people who are [currently] uninsured are low-income, so the people who pay the [current Obamacare] penalty tend to skew low-income."

"Those are the people that end up paying more under this new proposal," Pearson said.
While the 30 percent penalty called for by the Republican proposal is designed to discourage people from dropping health coverage — thus hurting the bottom lines of insurers — some health analysts have said it could actually have the opposite effect.

Healthy people, no longer confronted with Obamacare's individual mandate, may wager they will be better off financially by dropping their insurance plan, knowing they can re-enroll in coverage, and pay the GOP's penalty, if they need to at a later date.

Peason said, "I think it encourages people to delay buying coverage until they have very acute health-care needs."

"I think it could make the risk pool worse, which would drive up premiums," Pearson said.
Premiums are based on an insurer's costs. The healthier the "risk pool" of customers is the more likely it is that their premiums will cover the cost of providing benefits to customers needing medical care. The sicker the pool, the more likely that costs will outweigh revenue from premiums, which would lead insurers to increase their prices.

Cost of being uninsured would rise for many under GOP plan https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAo2ajr?m=en-us&ocid=News

 

People will lose their health insurance, will pay significantly more, have their health insurance rationed, or have coverage denied; but the rich get richer. Still trying to understand why health insurers are for profit? As an insurer, if you make billions annually, nobody should be denied healthcare.

GOP health plan sparks ire over tax break for insurance execs

Democrats on Wednesday broadly blasted a proposed Obamacare replacement bill after learning the federal government would lose about $400 million in lost tax revenue over the next decade due to a sweet break for health insurers.

Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that the tax break related to executive pay underscores the fact that the Republican replacement bill is "the beginning of a huge giveaway to the very, very wealthy," and the end of insurance coverage to millions of lower-income people.

"We're starting off... with essentially a giveaway to insurance executives," Levin said.

The proposed tax break, buried in cryptic language in the Republican plan, would allow health insurers to more fully deduct the value of their executives' compensation on their taxes. That compensation can be as high as tens of millions of dollars, in the case of CEOs of insurers.

Those deductions currently are sharply limited by the Affordable Care Act, which caps at a maximum of $500,000 the amount of an individual executive's compensation that an insurer could deduct as a business expense. The cap applies to any executive, not just to CEOs.

Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation, revealed the $400 million lost tax revenue estimate during the first day of review of the Obamacare replacement bill by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Barthold said that would be the total amount lost through 2026 if the bill became law this year.

If the bill is passed, Barthold said health insurers would be able to deduct up to $1 million of an individual executive's salary on their taxes, just like other types of U.S. companies.

But Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, noted that the $1 million deduction cap only is on salary. Executive compensation that includes "performance pay" can, and routinely does, significantly exceed the amount of a health insurer CEO's salary.

Doggett pointed out that the pay of Aetna's (AET) CEO is more than $17 million, and Cigna's (CI) CEO's tops $13 million. Most, if not all of their pay, could be written off as business expenses if the Republican bill becomes law.

"It could be $100 million, and it would still be possible" to deduct the full CEO compensation?Doggett asked.

Barthold answered, "It would be possible."
Committee member Rep. Brian Higgins, R-NY, said "I don't think this provision is unjustifiable, and I think it's morally reprehensible."

The CEO of UnitedHealth (UNH), Higgins pointed out, alone made $66 million last year.

"We're sitting here talking about giving big insurance companies a tax break on the exorbitant compensation to pay their executives?" Higgins said. "We should repeal this provision and replace it with an admonishment to the insurance companies to get your salaries in line with reality."

That provision, however, represents just a small fraction of the approximately $600 billion in revenue it is estimated the government would lose if the GOP Obamacare replacement plan was implemented. Much of those costs would come from the repeal of ACA-related taxes, which disproportionately affect wealthier Americans.

"So, essentially, what we have here to kick off... is a beginning of a huge giveaway to the very, very wealthy, a huge giveaway, and the silence from the other side I would think indicates deep embarrassment, if possible," Levin said, referring to Republicans on the committee.

"Six hundred billion, with the vast majority going to wealthy families. That describes so vividly the mistake with this bill, and will emphasize those who are going to lose their benefits and their insurance coverage, millions and millions, while billions are going to the very few," Levin said. "That's really what this all about."

GOP health plan sparks ire over tax break for insurance execs https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAo1XOm?m=en-us&ocid=News

 

You Trump supporters should have been watching Rachel Maddow tonight.

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/secr...to-help-trump-win.448644/page-61#post-8252474

 

And to not beat a dead horse I will reflect to the American steel comments made by President Cheeto at 2 separate speeches.


A look at Trump's comments and what really happened:

TRUMP:

— "I was sitting at my desk and I'm getting ready to sign Keystone and Dakota. I said, where's the pipe coming from? And I won't tell you where, but you wouldn't be happy. I say, why is it we build pipelines and we're not using pipe that's made in our country? I say, let's put that little clause in, like it's a one-sentence clause, but that clause is gonna attract a lot of people and we're gonna make that pipe right here in America. OK?" — Jan. 26, at a Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

— "We have authorized the construction, one day, of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines, and issued a new rule. This took place while I was getting ready to sign. I said, who makes the pipes for the pipeline? Well, sir, it comes from all over the world, isn't that wonderful? I said, nope, comes from the United States or we're not building it. American steel. If they want a pipeline in the United States, they're going to use pipe that's made in the United States, do we agree?" — Feb. 24, at the Conservative Political Access Conference.



These were his own words to a group of people, so he did say it, and he did lie.

 

Ok he lied.....in a way

but all new pipelines will have american steel and the steel makers are gearing up to to produce a product
that had been lost to China....

Dakota pipeline had a mile left to finish when Obama washed his hands of it and dumped the problem on Trump --
The pipe for that was sitting there......

Keystone has all the pipe that the remaining part of the part to be built also had pipe sitting there.
The lower part of Keystone is about ready I believe......

(I think) Trump realized he would hurt profits of companies by wasting paid for pipe.....
He wants to help business not hurt it like Obama has done.....

So I guess he lied...but all new pipelines in this country will have American steel and american workers and design companies....

You win---hoo ray !!!!

 

Online sales up 300% because people could not buy in stores that said their sales where bad....

Amazon number one perfume sales where hers....

Just shows what Trump can do for US business...
But most people dont buy stuff they dont want....
WhiteHouse be damned...

 

7 years of bitching and moaning and this is the health plan they come up with? Now the patriots will goose step in line and support this version. lol

 

Where is the "repeal" in the Paul Ryan Obamacare repeal plan ???

Those who benefit:
The young
The rich
The insurers

Those who are hurt by it:
The elderly
The sick
The poor

Call me crazy but am I missing something ???

 

illegal border crossings down 40% last month

USA today

The nation's Homeland Security chief said late Wednesday that illegal crossings at the U.S. southern border have seen "an unprecedented decline in traffic" that he says coincide with the president's new executive orders focusing on immigration laws.

Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly said the drop -- as measured by arrests and people halted from entering the country at the border -- is around 40% for the first two months of the year. Typically, January and February are busy months for illegal border crossings.

Kelly, nominated by Trump in December to take over homeland security, said the decline "is trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years." People apprehended at the border dropped from 31,578 to 18,762, Kelly said.

"Since President Trump took office on January 20, we have seen a dramatic drop in numbers," Kelly said. "This trend is encouraging because it means many fewer people are putting themselves and their families at risk of exploitation, assault and injury by human traffickers and the physical dangers of the treacherous journey north.

Kelly said the department is also seeing an increase in the fees charged by human smugglers along the southwest border. Since Nov. 2016, “coyotes” have hiked their fees in some areas by roughly 130 percent - from $3,500 to $8,000 in certain mountainous regions. Changes in U.S. policy, including the detention of apprehended aliens, drive up the smuggling fees, Kelly said.

 

We are missing that the way we have to gut Obamacare means it is a 3 step process....
step one----this bill

step 2 & 3 -- Bills that build the new program.....

I am if-ie on it.....

========================

elderly are on medicare and no changes really.....

poor are on medicaid and state systems need to be reformed statewide by the states with help from feds..

 

You cannot read. This retard ignores me so someone else forward to him.

Medicaid will turn into block grants. This means states will have to decide who to ration the money to. Will it be the elderly, the poor, the children, etc.

All you Sarah Palin fans will remember her speech stating ACA will ration care, death panels, etc. Guess what? Trumpcare is making that reality come true. Good luck.

 

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.

I seem to recall President Obama deported more illegals than any President in history. There was a net loss of illegal immigrants entering on the Mexican border.

 

If Chef Boyardee reports that sales of Beefaroni doubled, does that mean people are better fed?



Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

12/21/16

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

---------------------------

dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

Lawrence F. Katz Harvard University and NBER and Alan B. Krueger1 Princeton University and NBER

; "> Abstract: To monitor trends in alternative work arrangements, we conducted a version of the Contingent Worker Survey as part of the RAND American Life Panel in late 2015. The findings point to a significant rise in the incidence of alternative work arrangements in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015. The percentage of workers engaged in alternative work arrangements – defined as temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers – rose from 10.7 percent in February 2005 to 15.8 percent in late 2015.

A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.

 

Yeah I can do that for you and also point out Trumpcare hurts people over 65 a few other ways. One is by weakening Medicare's solvency. Also most seniors also have private supplemental insurance and those costs will go up. And finally by hurting seniors like every other man woman and child when both the cost of healthcare and healthcare insurance skyrocket.

 

11.5 million jobs created under President Obama.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/06/news/economy/obama-over-11-million-jobs/

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.