EDIT: Hopefully this just means that high-income earners may have to pay it back in 2021.
Not going to start this whole conversation again, but there was always going to be an income cutoff as there was for the other payments. I guess this would just me moving that line down some?
Not going to start this whole conversation again, but there was always going to be an income cutoff as there was for the other payments. I guess this would just me moving that line down some?
Silly us for thinking that Biden explicitly stating that voting Democrat in the Georgia run offs would mean $2000 cheques out the door immediately.
Silly us for thinking that Biden explicitly stating that voting Democrat in the Georgia run offs would mean $2000 cheques out the door immediately.
It was always a little bit of an icky thing to say vote for us and everyone gets $2000. I don't think he ever explicitly said anything about not having an income cut off though. All proposals that have been on the table had some cut off for income.
It was always a little bit of an icky thing to say vote for us and everyone gets $2000. I don't think he ever explicitly said anything about not having an income cut off though. All proposals that have been on the table had some cut off for income.
At worst, it was an out and out lie. At best, it was a deliberately misleading political ploy, which is pretty gross when you consider how many people probably took it at face value.
What I'm expecting is a check, then get dinged on taxes being in a higher tax bracket. I have a feeling that's where the claw back takes place.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping is the decision that's made. Either that or just count it as income at tax time. Base it on 2021 income, too. Basing it on 2019 or 2020 income is just a recipe for disaster and they type of thing that could lose the Democrats the House in 2022.
I haven't watched this video yet, so I have no idea if it supports or detracts from John Oliver's piece on SLAPP suits.
If you're unfamiliar, LegalEagle is Devon Stone, a DC based litigator with Stone Law (a boutique firm he started after working with Barnes & Thornburg and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. https://stonelawdc.com/about)
This indeed was one of my 'sources'.
The other 'sources', are like the other other poster said, news stories I know more detail about that Oliver doesn't present all important facts to make a point.
I understand that is a weak argument, but frankly, it is what is. I think Oliver presents a dangerous bias view and not going to back through countless old videos to justify what specifically. His reputation, nor mine on this issue, is not worth that time from me.
When he does it again, I will remember to post back .
With all the talk the last few days about Greene's views and her future, this shows you where the GOP is at. Incredible. Hillary was right.........basket of deplorables. A really, really big basket.
A Hill article about Greene's speech. A b.s. apology gets a standing ovation. Of course she's not sorry about anything.
Quote:
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) apologized for her past controversial remarks and embrace of the QAnon conspiracy theory during a heated closed-door House GOP conference meeting — and received a standing ovation at one point from a number of her colleagues.
Greene told her colleagues that she made a mistake by being curious about “Q” and said she told her children she learned a lesson about what to put on social media, according to two sources in the room.
She also denied that she knew what Jewish space lasers were and defended her comments that past school shootings were staged by stating that she had personal experience with a school shooting.
She received a standing ovation from some members of the caucus at the conclusion of her remarks.
This indeed was one of my 'sources'.
The other 'sources', are like the other other poster said, news stories I know more detail about that Oliver doesn't present all important facts to make a point.
I understand that is a weak argument, but frankly, it is what is. I think Oliver presents a dangerous bias view and not going to back through countless old videos to justify what specifically. His reputation, nor mine on this issue, is not worth that time from me.
When he does it again, I will remember to post back .
Sorry.
I would be quite surprised if this was one of your ‘sources’
It has nothing to do with Oliver not presenting all important facts to make a point and there being some danger that he poses to his viewers
On his show he did not outline all of the claims in Bob Murray’s lawsuit, but Bob Murray’s lawsuit was dismissed. The lawyer in this piece agrees that Murray never intended to win the lawsuit, only to essentially inflict pain on Oliver and HBO through incurring fees for a suit which was ultimately deemed to be without merit
What I am taking away is that when I asked for a specific example of his representation of an actual issue and its specific negative consequence, you didn’t provide one, rather said your source was a video provided by someone else, and which I am not sure if you did or didn’t watch, and if you watched it, whether you did or didn’t understand it.
So yes, it is a weak argument.
Essentially meritless
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
I would be quite surprised if this was one of your ‘sources’
You can be surprised all you want, I don't lie. Hell, I have posted that youtuber to this very forum multiple times already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
What I am taking away is that when I asked for a specific example of his representation of an actual issue and its specific negative consequence, you didn’t provide one, rather said your source was a video provided by someone else, and which I am not sure if you did or didn’t watch, and if you watched it, whether you did or didn’t understand it.
So yes, it is a weak argument.
Essentially meritless
And what I am saying is I recall watching Oliver and thinking to myself, I know this is bull####, its wrong. I can't specifically recall and example right now, but that's life.
Does that make my argument meritless? sure,
Does it matter to me? No I posted my opinion on an public message board.
As I said, I am sure he will do it again about an issue I actually know, and when he does, I will be sure to post back.
With all the talk the last few days about Greene's views and her future, this shows you where the GOP is at. Incredible. Hillary was right.........basket of deplorables. A really, really big basket.
Eh, I think this is far more telling. Sure there's definitely some loons, but when they don't have to put their name to it, they'll be pretty strongly against Trumpism. They're just a bunch of pussies really, not crazy.
Man, it's really too bad The Economist is behind a paywall, although they wouldn't be what they are without being behind one. Either way, they just ripped Biden apart for his soft protectionist start to his presidency, and how it hurts both America and it's allies but for some stupid reason sells well in America.
Quote:
Presidents and voters like Buy American because they think it creates jobs. In a direct sense it does. But by locking firms out of global supply chains and shielding them from competition it promotes inefficiency, destroying more employment than it creates.
Buy one estimate America would gain a net 300, 000 jobs if it got rid of it's local-content rules
and coddling local firms is a raw deal for taxpayers. From February American firms will be able to charge their government up to 20% more than prevailing global prices.
In his instincts about the economics of trade America's new president is not so different from his predecessor. That is bad news for America and for the world
Man, it's really too bad The Economist is behind a paywall, although they wouldn't be what they are without being behind one. Either way, they just ripped Biden apart for his soft protectionist start to his presidency, and how it hurts both America and it's allies but for some stupid reason sells well in America.
Do we know which sectors those 300k jobs would be in? I get that 300k jobs is a positive but if the bulk are of the middle-management, white-collar variety, then it doesn't do much to help the working class.
There's also the whole national security aspect of trying to repatriate as many manufacturing jobs and reducing trade deficits.
On a related note, I highly, highly recommend that everyone get a subscription to the Economist. What an eye opening, amazing publication if you want to have a full world view (or the best we have available).
Yes, it's expensive at $300 a year, but I've found that after the 50% off first three months offer you just open the chat to cancel and within two or three messages you're down to 50% off every renewal as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
You can be surprised all you want, I don't lie. Hell, I have posted that youtuber to this very forum multiple times already.
And what I am saying is I recall watching Oliver and thinking to myself, I know this is bull####, its wrong. I can't specifically recall and example right now, but that's life.
As I said, I am sure he will do it again about an issue I actually know, and when he does, I will be sure to post back.
If you don't like that, move on?
Gladly
I will note, you are right in the sense that he does have a defence with regard to defamation that obvious satire is constitutionally protected and not grounds for defamation. With Bob Murray, he presented his statements in an entertaining song and dance format with content and presentation to pretty much assure any SLAPP suit would be unsuccessful. Bob Murray can always go ahead and sue him again, of course. But that has nothing to do with a lawsuit having merit
I hardly think Oliver is an example of somebody taking editorial liberties and posing any meaningful kind of danger
If you ever do actually think of or come up with something, let me know. I’d be interested
