It does feel like a kind of groundhog day thing where we have to repeat every day listening to the same bullshit from Trump with slight variations again and again.
It does feel like a kind of groundhog day thing where we have to repeat every day listening to the same bullshit from Trump with slight variations again and again.
That's because it's a great distraction for everything else going on at the same time.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
President Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.
One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.
The federal government has paid the partnership that owns Starrett City more than $490 million in rent subsidies since May 2013, according to figures provided by a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nearly $38 million of that has come since Trump took office in January.
Trump once called Starrett City “one of the best investments I ever made,” but it was his father who was an investor in its construction, according to a representative of Starrett City.
“It’s a conflict, and it’s why everyone has pushed Trump to not only step away from his business interests but to divest them,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog organization.
The project-based rental assistance program is one of only a few HUD programs that would be spared steep cuts under Trump’s proposed budget, which housing advocates have said would carry devastating consequences for the poor and the homeless.
The administration has proposed reducing HUD’s overall budget by $7 billion, or about 15 percent. That includes cuts to two of the other programs that, together with the program that pays landlords directly, serve the vast majority of people who get federal housing assistance.
The budget calls for a nearly 29 percent cut, or $1.8 billion, to public housing and a 5 percent drop, or nearly $1 billion, in vouchers that allow tenants to use the aid on the housing of their choice, according to Douglas Rice, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In contrast, the program that directs money to Starrett City and other privately owned housing would see a reduction of about half a percent, or $65 million, from its $10.8 billion allocation.
“It certainly raises questions as to why that remained relatively flat while there were other cuts,” Amey said.
The spike in LLC's could also be businesses and people not being seen as wanting to do business with Trump because it would tank their PR. It's what I would do.
That's some high grade corruption. This seems to be often repeated, and again the answer is repeated, there shouldn't be any doubt or need to question it in the first place. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence he personally ordered it.
While there is no indication that Trump himself was involved in the decision, it is nonetheless a stark illustration of how his financial interests can directly rise or fall on the policies of his administration.
President Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.
One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.
The federal government has paid the partnership that owns Starrett City more than $490 million in rent subsidies since May 2013, according to figures provided by a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nearly $38 million of that has come since Trump took office in January.
Trump once called Starrett City “one of the best investments I ever made,” but it was his father who was an investor in its construction, according to a representative of Starrett City.
“It’s a conflict, and it’s why everyone has pushed Trump to not only step away from his business interests but to divest them,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog organization.
The project-based rental assistance program is one of only a few HUD programs that would be spared steep cuts under Trump’s proposed budget, which housing advocates have said would carry devastating consequences for the poor and the homeless.
The administration has proposed reducing HUD’s overall budget by $7 billion, or about 15 percent. That includes cuts to two of the other programs that, together with the program that pays landlords directly, serve the vast majority of people who get federal housing assistance.
The budget calls for a nearly 29 percent cut, or $1.8 billion, to public housing and a 5 percent drop, or nearly $1 billion, in vouchers that allow tenants to use the aid on the housing of their choice, according to Douglas Rice, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In contrast, the program that directs money to Starrett City and other privately owned housing would see a reduction of about half a percent, or $65 million, from its $10.8 billion allocation.
“It certainly raises questions as to why that remained relatively flat while there were other cuts,” Amey said.
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Which was the day he was inaugurated.
Also, Snopes says it is false that non-profits can't criticize President Trump
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Which was the day he was inaugurated.
Also, Snopes says it is false that non-profits can't criticize President Trump
That's not going to stop representiatives and pundits from saying it's NOT false. And in the current environment, perception "trumps" truth.
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Which was the day he was inaugurated.
Also, Snopes says it is false that non-profits can't criticize President Trump
That's not going to stop representiatives and pundits from saying it's NOT false. And in the current environment, perception "trumps" truth.
and perhaps even more to the point, do you think he knows that?
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Which was the day he was inaugurated.
Also, Snopes says it is false that non-profits can't criticize President Trump
That's not going to stop representiatives and pundits from saying it's NOT false. And in the current environment, perception "trumps" truth.
and perhaps even more to the point, do you think he knows that?
Man if there's one thing people will really love it's a never-ending campaign for the sole purpose of fundraising for Trump and Trump businesses
Drain the swamp!
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Man if there's one thing people will really love it's a never-ending campaign for the sole purpose of fundraising for Trump and Trump businesses
Drain the swamp!
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Like how populism doesn't actually mean "not appointing extremely rich people to office because you think poor people shouldn't be in those positions" to the GOP.
Man if there's one thing people will really love it's a never-ending campaign for the sole purpose of fundraising for Trump and Trump businesses
Drain the swamp!
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Like how populism doesn't actually mean "not appointing extremely rich people to office because you think poor people shouldn't be in those positions" to the GOP.
"Not like you. No, I want the people who have fucked you, and are going to keep fucking you, as long as you're stupid enough to keep voting for them and me and against yourself."
Man if there's one thing people will really love it's a never-ending campaign for the sole purpose of fundraising for Trump and Trump businesses
Drain the swamp!
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Like how populism doesn't actually mean "not appointing extremely rich people to office because you think poor people shouldn't be in those positions" to the GOP.
Man if there's one thing people will really love it's a never-ending campaign for the sole purpose of fundraising for Trump and Trump businesses
Drain the swamp!
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Like how populism doesn't actually mean "not appointing extremely rich people to office because you think poor people shouldn't be in those positions" to the GOP.
"Populism" is generally a PC way of saying "racist politician." Have you noticed how all the European Nazis are referred to as "populist"? The press never refers to standard right-wing politicians in this way.
+19
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
In incredibly petty corruption, one of Trump's golf courses is trying to cut its tax bill in half by claiming it's only worth half of what it's assessed by the town - while Trump himself claims it's worth over three times that amount. In the words of the town supervisor:
And Gloria Fried, the receiver of taxes for Ossining, tells ABC that “it is very difficult when you see someone who has all these assets at his disposal who would rather pay lawyers to avoid his civic duty of paying taxes.”
"Populism" is generally a PC way of saying "racist politician." Have you noticed how all the European Nazis are referred to as "populist"? The press never refers to standard right-wing politicians in this way.
Strictist sense populism just means "give the people what they want," which historically has been salt-of-the-earth conservatism on social issues but generous economic welfare.
It has a resemblance to Fascism, but populism is more "tyranny of the majority" than fascism's obsession with rule of a minority clique that presents the true will of the volk.
+4
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
In incredibly petty corruption, one of Trump's golf courses is trying to cut its tax bill in half by claiming it's only worth half of what it's assessed by the town - while Trump himself claims it's worth over three times that amount.
Go with Donnie's number (since his personal assessment is a matter of public record) and triple the tax bill, and if he doesn't pay, try and eminent domain that shit.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
"Populism" is generally a PC way of saying "racist politician." Have you noticed how all the European Nazis are referred to as "populist"? The press never refers to standard right-wing politicians in this way.
I would say populism is about rallying the people, but it is ripe for abuse as a political phrase by racist people seeking power.
Oh Christ, Trump is meeting with the IOC tomorrow. He's going to give them so much public money for the theoretical LA Olympics.
Turns out you can grift a grifter
They're not gritting him, though. He's the not the one paying and he still gets a big and lavish ceremony.
Current rumor is it would be at least his successor (2028), actually. But yeah, it'd be American taxpayer money he'd steal and funnel to them, presumably.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"Populism" is generally a PC way of saying "racist politician." Have you noticed how all the European Nazis are referred to as "populist"? The press never refers to standard right-wing politicians in this way.
I would say populism is about rallying the people, but it is ripe for abuse as a political phrase by racist people seeking power.
I mean, and NOT TO START A DERAIL, Bernie was totally a populist candidate. Obama as well.
"Populism" is generally a PC way of saying "racist politician." Have you noticed how all the European Nazis are referred to as "populist"? The press never refers to standard right-wing politicians in this way.
I would say populism is about rallying the people, but it is ripe for abuse as a political phrase by racist people seeking power.
I mean, and NOT TO START A DERAIL, Bernie was totally a populist candidate. Obama as well.
President Trump’s budget calls for sharply reducing funding for programs that shelter the poor and combat homelessness — with a notable exception: It leaves intact a type of federal housing subsidy that is paid directly to private landlords.
One of those landlords is Trump himself, who earns millions of dollars each year as a part-owner of Starrett City, the nation’s largest subsidized housing complex. Trump’s 4 percent stake in the Brooklyn complex earned him at least $5 million between January of last year and April 15, according to his recent financial disclosure.
The federal government has paid the partnership that owns Starrett City more than $490 million in rent subsidies since May 2013, according to figures provided by a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nearly $38 million of that has come since Trump took office in January.
Trump once called Starrett City “one of the best investments I ever made,” but it was his father who was an investor in its construction, according to a representative of Starrett City.
“It’s a conflict, and it’s why everyone has pushed Trump to not only step away from his business interests but to divest them,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog organization.
The project-based rental assistance program is one of only a few HUD programs that would be spared steep cuts under Trump’s proposed budget, which housing advocates have said would carry devastating consequences for the poor and the homeless.
The administration has proposed reducing HUD’s overall budget by $7 billion, or about 15 percent. That includes cuts to two of the other programs that, together with the program that pays landlords directly, serve the vast majority of people who get federal housing assistance.
The budget calls for a nearly 29 percent cut, or $1.8 billion, to public housing and a 5 percent drop, or nearly $1 billion, in vouchers that allow tenants to use the aid on the housing of their choice, according to Douglas Rice, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In contrast, the program that directs money to Starrett City and other privately owned housing would see a reduction of about half a percent, or $65 million, from its $10.8 billion allocation.
“It certainly raises questions as to why that remained relatively flat while there were other cuts,” Amey said.
This really is just the cherry on the whole thing
Trump once called Starrett City “one of the best investments I ever made,” but it was his father who was an investor in its construction, according to a representative of Starrett City.
Oh Christ, Trump is meeting with the IOC tomorrow. He's going to give them so much public money for the theoretical LA Olympics.
This would still require Los Angeles to make a bid and that's up in the air as to if they even will after witnessing the previous ones and their disastrous effects.
Oh Christ, Trump is meeting with the IOC tomorrow. He's going to give them so much public money for the theoretical LA Olympics.
This would still require Los Angeles to make a bid and that's up in the air as to if they even will after witnessing the previous ones and their disastrous effects.
The LA mayor was on Pod Save America a few weeks back and seemed pretty enthusiastic about the whole thing. He *said* that it would be profitable. I don't know if I believe that, but they're in a better starting position than Rio was for sure.
Oh Christ, Trump is meeting with the IOC tomorrow. He's going to give them so much public money for the theoretical LA Olympics.
This would still require Los Angeles to make a bid and that's up in the air as to if they even will after witnessing the previous ones and their disastrous effects.
The LA mayor was on Pod Save America a few weeks back and seemed pretty enthusiastic about the whole thing. He *said* that it would be profitable. I don't know if I believe that, but they're in a better starting position than Rio was for sure.
If he even thinks about making a serious offer in the face of all this IOC corruption then I'm going to be one of many who send very angry messages to him.
Posts
That's because it's a great distraction for everything else going on at the same time.
Holy fucking fuckballs
Grifting like a champ.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I mean, that's what he did the whole campaign too.
Six fucking months into his first term? Jesus fucking christ.
Does he not think he'll still be able to use this particular grift in two years?
Yeah but why wait to grift in two years when there's money to be made by grifting now?
The concern is probably less the profit he can make from it and more the fact that starting his reelection campaign imposes legal restrictions on what nonprofits are allowed to say about him.
This isn't about reelection, it's about silencing critics.
That already took effect when he filed for reelection.
Which was the day he was inaugurated.
Also, Snopes says it is false that non-profits can't criticize President Trump
and perhaps even more to the point, do you think he knows that?
Drain the swamp!
Grift now, run away to nations without extradition treaties with the US later.
Or cared if he did know.
"The swamp" meant "Democrats" so it's working. Only Democrats interpreted it as meaning "corrupt career politicians." Republican voters knew what he meant.
Like how populism doesn't actually mean "not appointing extremely rich people to office because you think poor people shouldn't be in those positions" to the GOP.
NBC reporter:
"Not like you. No, I want the people who have fucked you, and are going to keep fucking you, as long as you're stupid enough to keep voting for them and me and against yourself."
That sign behind him is at best a gigantic number, if whatever calculator doesn't just throw an exception.
Can't divide by zero
Strictist sense populism just means "give the people what they want," which historically has been salt-of-the-earth conservatism on social issues but generous economic welfare.
It has a resemblance to Fascism, but populism is more "tyranny of the majority" than fascism's obsession with rule of a minority clique that presents the true will of the volk.
Go with Donnie's number (since his personal assessment is a matter of public record) and triple the tax bill, and if he doesn't pay, try and eminent domain that shit.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Turns out you can grift a grifter
They're not gritting him, though. He's the not the one paying and he still gets a big and lavish ceremony.
Current rumor is it would be at least his successor (2028), actually. But yeah, it'd be American taxpayer money he'd steal and funnel to them, presumably.
I mean, and NOT TO START A DERAIL, Bernie was totally a populist candidate. Obama as well.
/wrenches train back on tracks
No! Bad tangent!
This really is just the cherry on the whole thing
This would still require Los Angeles to make a bid and that's up in the air as to if they even will after witnessing the previous ones and their disastrous effects.
The LA mayor was on Pod Save America a few weeks back and seemed pretty enthusiastic about the whole thing. He *said* that it would be profitable. I don't know if I believe that, but they're in a better starting position than Rio was for sure.
If he even thinks about making a serious offer in the face of all this IOC corruption then I'm going to be one of many who send very angry messages to him.