Overheard

Nothing gets rich people more riled up

than talking about what they think

poor people don't deserve.

One Scalp At A Time

This has been brewing since Andrew's dalliance with Koo Stark in the 80s. There's always been somewhat scandalous behavior amongst the British Royals, and I don't know why anyone would be surprised at any of this.

Money buys power, and power buys immunity from the kind of everyday accountability that the rest of us can expect for ourselves.

I have no sympathy for Poor Little Rich Kids who get spanked and sent to their rooms once every 40 years.

Prince Andrew gives up royal titles amid Epstein fallout

Andrew has been under intense scrutiny over his relationship with American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Prince Andrew has surrendered his titles, including the Duke of York, amid growing pressure over a series of scandals, including his alleged ties with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family,” Andrew said in a statement Friday evening.

Andrew has been under intense scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein — the American financier and convicted sex offender who ran a network that exploited and trafficked underage girls. He faced backlash over a civil sexual-assault court case brought in the U.S. by Virginia Giuffre, which was eventually settled, and over his involvement with an alleged Chinese spy.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life,” Andrew added in his statement, “vigorously” denying the accusations against him.

The announcement comes just days before the release of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, which reportedly details three occasions on which Andrew allegedly had sex with her — excerpts of which were published by the Guardian earlier in the week.

Andrew’s children, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, are set to retain their titles.

Today's Rich

The technique of linking religion to whatever economic &/or political power you're trying to exert is the oldest trick in the book.

The unwashed masses have been conditioned to believe they're not allowed to criticize god, and that they can't resist the awesomeness of his awesomely awesome power, so everybody should just shut up and knuckle under.

If you can convince them that you're actually one with that all-powerful being, you can shit on their heads, and they'll instinctually say, "Thanks for the hat, boss.".

Je suis l’État, et l’État c’est moi.

So here's the WaPo piece:

Inside billionaire Peter Thiel’s private lectures: Warnings of ‘the Antichrist’ and U.S. destruction

The Washington Post reviewed leaked audio from four off-the-record lectures the tech investor delivered in San Francisco over the past month that fused beliefs about religion and technology.

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel recently warned that Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and critics of technology or artificial intelligence are “legionnaires of the Antichrist” in private lectures on Christianity that connected government oversight of Silicon Valley to an apocalyptic future, according to recordings reviewed by The Washington Post.

In the four, roughly two-hour lectures, which began last month and culminated Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Thiel laid out his religious views to a sold-out audience told to keep the contents “off-the-record,” according to an event listing. He argued that those who propose limits on technology development not only hinder business but also threaten to usher in the destruction of the United States and an era of global totalitarian rule, according to the recordings.

“In the 17th, 18th century, the Antichrist would have been a Dr. Strangelove, a scientist who did all this sort of evil crazy science,” Thiel said in his Sept. 15 opening talk, according to the recordings. “In the 21st century, the Antichrist is a Luddite who wants to stop all science. It’s someone like Greta or Eliezer,” he said, referring to Thunberg and Eliezer Yudkowsky, a prominent critic of the tech industry’s approach to AI.

Thunberg has criticized global capitalism as a driver of environmental degradation while Yudkowsky advocates for limiting AI research to prevent the technology from surpassing human intelligence. Thiel previously funded Yudkowsky’s work but said in his Sept. 15 lecture that he is now embarrassed by the association and that the AI critic and others like him have become “deranged,” according to the recordings.

Thiel’s lectures come at a time of rising Christian nationalism in the United States. Christians have varying interpretations of the biblical Antichrist, but the figure is often understood to be an opponent of God who appears during the end-times.

The Post sent Thiel, through a spokesperson, a detailed list of questions about his remarks in the lectures, but Thiel declined to comment.

Yudkowsky said in a statement “my understanding is that authorities from multiple Christian denominations have stated that Thiel’s views, identifying the Antichrist with proposals to regulate the AI industry, are not deemed by them to be compatible with conventional Christian belief.” Spokespeople for Thunberg did not return a request for comment.

The Post reviewed audio recordings of all four of Thiel’s lectures, titled “The Antichrist: A Four-Part Lecture Series.” A review of a sample of the audio by Hany Farid, a digital forensics expert and professor at the University of California at Berkeley, indicated they were probably authentic and not manipulated by AI. Reuters previously reported some passages from Thiel’s lectures.

Thiel, an early investor in Facebook and co-founder of data analytics firm Palantir, has long espoused libertarian views, arguing that politics, bureaucracy and regulations have led to economic stagnation in the U.S. and Europe.

But the recent lectures appear to mark an intensification of this ideology and attempt to pitch it on a grander scale. The recordings offer new detail about how the billionaire seems to place those who would critique or regulate tech developers into a religious good-vs.-evil worldview, where the future of all creation depends on giving innovators free rein.

Silicon Valley leaders have escalated their fight against regulating AI since President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Thiel has close ties to administration officials including Vice President JD Vance, White House science adviser Michael Kratsios and David Sacks, White House AI and crypto czar. As one of the industry’s most influential leaders, his effort to cast resisting oversight of technology development as a religious battle could intensify the industry’s crusade.

Thiel said in his third lecture, on Sept. 29, that only a religious argument could inspire the proper response to the threat of a growing web of global rules, according to the recording.

“There are a lot of rational reasons I can give why the one-world state’s a bad idea: Turn the planet into a prison; I think the tax rates would be very high,” he said, according to the recording. “But I think if you strip it from the biblical context, you will never find it scary enough. You will never really resist.”

The billionaire’s lectures were also notable as a forceful display of religiosity in an industry that has historically been secular. Christianity has recently become a significant presence in some influential tech circles, in part because of ACTS 17 Collective, a nonprofit dedicated to spreading Christian principles inside the tech industry that organized the Thiel lectures.

Those with tickets were required to attend the full series of four talks in addition to respecting the off-the-record policy, the event listing said. Thiel hinted in his third lecture on Sept. 29 that the restriction was intended to draw more attention to his ideas, according to the recording. “It’s a pretty good marketing shtick if you want everyone to hear about something, not to let anyone into the room,” he said. “I’m not bragging, but I’m not totally incompetent.”

The billionaire spoke for nearly eight hours across the four private lectures about his theories of the role of technology in society and the world, according to the recordings, citing sources ranging from the Bible and theological and philosophical texts to Japanese anime.

He acknowledged that technology could have negative effects on people and society but argued that constraining its development would be more harmful.

“Maybe these things are good or bad — stopping them seems far, far worse,” he said, according to the recordings. “If the internet or the AI deranges some people but we have to shut it down altogether, that feels like out of the frying pan into the fire — a cure that’s far worse than the disease.”

A threadbare patchwork of state laws imposes limits on AI development, requiring California companies to safety-test products and preventing Texas companies from discriminating against protected classes. Despite a flurry of activity in Washington in recent years, no federal law has passed.

Thiel argued that critiques of technology and calls for stricter regulation by Thunberg and others appear to echo biblical interpretations of an Antichrist who will win power by offering the world “peace and safety” from apocalyptic destruction, according to the recordings. He previously cited Thunberg in a June interview with the New York Times

Thiel also accused Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who is known for popularizing the idea that humanity will eventually invent a potentially dangerous “superintelligence,” of advocating for restrictions on technology that will hold society back, according to the recordings.

In an interview, Bostrom said his views are “complex” and have evolved to focus more on the positive potential of AI. “Maybe he needs a new casting agency for his demonology,” Bostrom said of Thiel.

Thiel, whose net worth is around $27 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, also used his private talks to criticize financial regulations. He said such rules were a sign that a singular world government has begun to emerge that could be taken over by an Antichrist figure who could then use it to exert control over people.

“​​It’s become quite difficult to hide one’s money,” Thiel said, according to the recordings. “An incredible machinery of tax treaties, financial surveillance and sanctions architecture has been constructed.” Wealth gives the “illusion of power and autonomy,” Thiel added, according to the recordings, “but you have this sense it could be taken away at any moment.”

Thiel has deep ties to the Trump administration and was early among tech figures to endorse the president’s first run for office in 2016. He did not donate to any Republican politicians in 2024 but was part of a network of tech elites who helped install Vance, a mentee, as vice president.

Thiel has donated to GOP candidates this year, giving $850,000 to the joint fundraising committee of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), according to federal election filings.

In his lectures and the Q&As that followed each one, Thiel offered views on whether figures including President Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, former president Joe Biden and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates were Antichrist-like figures, according to the recordings.

Biden and Xi were not charismatic enough, Thiel said, according to the recordings, and while he declared Gates a “very, very awful person,” the investor said he was not “remotely able to be the Antichrist.”

Thiel’s comments about Trump were more complex, according to the recordings. “If you, in a sincere, rational, well-reasoned way are willing to make the argument that Trump is the Antichrist, I will give you a hearing,” he said. “If you’re not willing to make that argument, maybe you have to be open to possibility that he’s at least relatively good.”

A spokesman for Thiel, Jeremiah Hall, said: “Peter doesn’t believe Trump is the Antichrist. His challenge was for Trump’s liberal critics to make that case if they want Peter to hear them out, and he knows that in practice they can’t and won’t do so.” The White House did not return a request for comment.

Thiel also talked about other powerful figures in technology. He accused fellow tech investor Marc Andreessen of “pure Silicon Valley gobbledygook propaganda,” according to the recordings, in Andreessen’s 2023 essay titled “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that predicted AI would rapidly transform society in many positive ways.

Thiel had kinder words about Tesla CEO Elon Musk, according to the recordings, calling the entrepreneur, who has recently praised Christianity, one of the “smarter, more thoughtful people” he knows.

The investor said he recently encouraged Musk to renege on his 2012 commitment to the Giving Pledge movement co-founded by Gates, which asks wealthy people to commit the majority of their fortune to charitable causes, according to the recordings.

“$200 billion — if you’re not going to be careful — is going to left-wing nonprofits that are going to be chosen by Bill Gates,” Thiel said he warned Musk, according to the recording, painting the philanthropist as among the malevolent forces besetting technologists.

Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople for Andreessen and Gates did not respond to requests for comment. Reuters previously reported some of Thiel’s comments on Trump and Musk.

Thiel has long been a devout Christian, but in recent times he and other prominent Silicon Valley figures have been more vocal about their faith. The movement has gained momentum since Trump’s reelection and has become entangled with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, which some see as a potentially all-powerful technology raising deep questions about humanity.

ACTS 17, the Christian nonprofit that organized Thiel’s talks, is an acronym for Acknowledging Christ within Technology and Society. Its name also refers to the New Testament book of Acts, in which the apostle Paul travels to Athens, where he debates the Christian Gospel with philosophers.

The group’s founder, Michelle Stephens, is married to Trae Stephens, an investor at Thiel’s venture capital firm, Founders Fund, and a co-founder of military tech company Anduril.

Stephens has said that she got the idea for ACTS 17 at a 40th birthday party for her husband in 2023. At the celebration, she has said in interviews, Thiel gave a speech about Christ and miracles, prompting her to realize that ministering to elites is just as important as Christian teachings about ministering to the poor.

Stephens introduced Thiel at his first lecture on Sept. 15 as “one of the great capitalists” and also “great Christians of our time,” according to the recording. Protesters gathered outside the event, according to local news reports, with some dressed as devils or holding signs that accused Thiel himself of being the Antichrist.

When asked for comment, Stephens asked The Post to “respect” the event’s off-the-record policy and did not comment further.

Garry Tan, chief executive of the start-up incubator Y Combinator and a member of ACTS 17, has hosted events in his San Francisco home — a converted church — about the intersection of Christian faith, science and technology over the past year.

One gathering hosted by Tan in June featured Pat Gelsinger, former CEO of chipmaker Intel, and was organized by ACTS 17, according to a social post by Gelsinger. “Such a deep discussion on the ‘Holy Shift’ across life, AI, leadership and faith,” he wrote.

A spokesperson for Playground, a venture capital firm where Gelsinger is a general partner, declined to comment.

Tan said he thought Thiel’s comparison of potential overregulation of AI to the Antichrist was “thought-provoking” and a “somewhat tongue-in-cheek” use of the concept. “These are useful mental frameworks for how technology interacts with society,” he said.

Overregulation of nuclear power has worsened the climate crisis, he added. “What if we do that to the age of intelligence? The future won’t repeat, but it will rhyme.”

Today's Aaron

Labor first, then capital.

Just A Thought

If AI is such an extraordinarily useful tool in decision-making, we should put it in charge of the big corporations and shit-can all those mega-billionaire parasites who think they actually earn their gazillion-dollar salaries and bonuses and perks.

I dunno - worth considering.

A Quote

"If he needs a million acres to make him feel rich, seems to me he needs it 'cuz he feels awful poor inside hisself. And if he's poor inside hisself, ain't no million acres gonna make him feel rich."

Casy in The Grapes Of Wrath

--John Steinbeck

Tell 'Em No

These assholes just can't help it.



Conservatives are asking Trump for another big tax cut

Fresh off passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” some anti-tax advocates hope to push the administration to change how taxable capital gains are calculated.

Fresh off passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” several conservative organizations and Republican lawmakers are preparing to ask President Donald Trump for another major tax cut — this time, potentially without congressional approval.

Trump’s tax and immigration law is projected to add more than $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, broadly reducing tax rates while cutting spending on Medicaid and clean energy subsidies. The legislation is the culmination of years of advocacy on the right, making permanent many of the 2017 tax cuts Trump approved during his first term, and it represents one of the most expensive new laws in decades.

With that victory newly secured, conservative groups — including Americans for Tax Reform, led by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist — are already asking the Trump administration to get behind another cut, which would drastically reduce what investors pay on their capital gains.

The plan rests on changing how the Treasury Department calculates those taxes.

Currently, an investor who bought stock for $1,000 in 1980 and sold it for $10,000 today would owe capital gains taxes on the increase in value of $9,000. But under the proposal pitched by Norquist and others, the calculation would start by adjusting up the value of the original purchase to account for inflation — which would reduce the amount of gain that’s taxable after selling the stock.

Although a 1992 Justice Department opinion found that such a change would require an act of Congress, Norquist and other conservatives want the Treasury Department to execute such a policy unilaterally if necessary, providing a major windfall for people selling stocks, art, businesses, homes and other assets.

One GOP senator, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, said he had spoken with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about reviving the idea. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) has also been pitched on supporting such a plan in recent weeks, as advocates try to build congressional support, said two other people familiar with the matter, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The Trump administration weighed unilaterally implementing the change during the president’s first term but backed off after Steven Mnuchin, then treasury secretary, suggested Congress should lead on the matter. Conservative groups are also asking congressional Republicans to include the measure in a second tax legislative package, possibly later this year or next year. (Johnson has said the GOP plans to pass a second party-line legislative package in the fall and a third in the spring of next year.) But if that does not emerge, they are also optimistic that Bessent may prove more sympathetic than Mnuchin to their case for Trump to act by executive order.

In an interview, Norquist said he directly recommended to Trump in a recent phone call that he should implement the change by executive order after passage of the tax bill, reminding the president that he had explored this option during his first term. Norquist, who argues that the new policy will help open up the housing market, said he has also talked to Bessent about the proposal.

Spokespeople for the Treasury Department and White House declined to comment.

“I said something like, ‘Mr. President, after we do the bill, we will need more economic growth. The Big Beautiful Bill is very pro-growth, but with this, we can have even more growth,’” Norquist said. “The bureaucracy stopped him the first time, but they can’t this time.”

It is unclear if the administration is currently considering such a plan. The GOP tax measure was only signed into law on Friday, and Trump’s economic team will be busy both implementing the tax overhaul and negotiating numerous trade deals ahead of a new Aug. 1 deadline before tariffs take effect.

Nonpartisan economists are sharply critical of the proposed change to the tax code. During Trump’s first term, the Tax Policy Center and Penn Wharton Budget Model found that indexing capital gains to inflation would add roughly $100 billion to $200 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.

The affluent would disproportionately benefit from the change, those nonpartisan estimates have found. The highest-earning 1 percent of Americans would receive 86 percent of the benefits from indexing capital gains to inflation, while the bottom 80 percent of income earners would get just 1 percent of the benefits, Penn Wharton projected in 2018.

Meanwhile, the tax law Trump signed last week delivers more than $1 trillion in benefits to the top 1 percent while steeply cutting Medicaid and food stamps, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank.

“They just got a massive tax bill that is overwhelmingly tilted for the wealthy, and to hide the ball, they’re trying to unilaterally deliver additional tax cuts for the wealthy,” said Elizabeth Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, another left-leaning think tank. “Why don’t they think the wealthy got enough in the tax bill they just passed?”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also a left-leaning think tank, has warned that indexing capital gains to inflation without adjusting other parts of the tax code would open up new tax-avoidance strategies. And the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank, has said that it is “unlikely that indexing capital gains for inflation would provide the economy a meaningful boost,” while stressing the complexity of implementing the proposal.

The proposal faces major legal obstacles, as well.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 1992 concluded that the Treasury Department did not have the authority for the unilateral cut. The change, if implemented unilaterally, would almost certainly face an immediate court challenge.

But conservatives have said they are optimistic they can persuade Trump. They are pitching the shift as providing relief from the inflation that occurred during the Biden administration, which Trump has frequently railed against. Trump also said in 2019 that it would be “very easy to do” and that a majority of his White House economic advisers supported it.

Stephen Moore, who has served as an economic adviser to Trump, said the proposal should be characterized as providing benefits to seniors, since it would lower their taxes on sales of stocks and potentially homes, though the first $500,000 in capital gains from home sales are already protected from taxes.

“Indexing capital gains is a layup — it’s something that would be hard for Democrats to argue against. It would be a big win for seniors, and it would unlock a lot of capital,” said Moore, who is also senior economic adviser for the America First Policy Institute and chair of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, two conservative groups. “This something we’re really pushing, and the White House has been interested.”

The Independent Women’s Voice, another conservative group, is expected to join the push. Heather R. Higgins, chair of the Independent Women’s Forum, said in a statement that “this is one of those good ideas that should be a no-brainer and nonpartisan. … Keeping these dollars matters to women, families, and small businesses.” Higgins added that the administration should make the change via executive order if passing legislation was not feasible. Americans for Tax Reform also pointed to IRS data showing 30 million returns had capital gains filings of some amount, and that 22 million of those were in households with $200,000 or less in gross income.

Some GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Thom Tillis (North Carolina) and Ted Cruz (Texas), have endorsed legislation to enact the change. House and Senate Democrats are expected to overwhelmingly oppose the measure.

Off Ya Go

The Wedding

The Bloody Big Bamboozle Pared Down

When you sit down to do your budget, you prioritize the items on your list of things that are important - housing, groceries, transportation, etc.

If there's a few bucks left, you also decide what other stuff you might want to fund - savings, college fund for the kids, entertainment, travel, charities, church, etc.

After the essentials, you fund what matters to you. And that makes your budget a statement of your morality.

It should come as no surprise that Republicans don't give one empty fuck about anything but staying in power so they can put more Yacht Money in the very well-lined pockets of their fat cat "donors".

DONORS

RHYMES WITH

OWNERS

Senate parliamentarian’s no-go list: 12 pieces struck from Trump’s megabill

The Senate parliamentarian has rejected several controversial provisions in the GOP’s tax and spending package over the past few days.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) aims to have the “big, beautiful bill” on President Trump’s desk by July 4. But first, some of the megabill’s most controversial aspects must undergo the “Byrd bath,” a challenge of whether they are eligible under the Byrd Rule to be part of a reconciliation package that can pass with a 51-vote majority.

Republicans can still retool the provisions in an attempt to address the conflicts and resubmit them for review.

Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled several parts of the tax and spending legislation violate Senate rules and must taken out.

Here’s a look at what didn’t make the initial cut:

Change to Federal Employees Retirement System contributions
MacDonough ruled against language that proposed increasing the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for new civil servants who refuse to become at-will employees. She argued the provision violates the Byrd Rule, which bars provisions that are considered “extraneous” to the federal budget.

State authorization to conduct border security and immigration enforcement
The megabill originally included language that gave states the authority to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, a responsibility that has traditionally fallen on the federal government. MacDonough rejected this language, ruling it violates the Byrd Rule.

Measure to limit court contempt powers
The parliamentarian rejected a measure in the bill that would have made it harder for courts to enforce lawsuits against the Trump administration. The measure targeted preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders issued by federal judges against Trump’s executive orders and other directives. MacDonough argued that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump in contempt violates Senate rules.

Language barring noncitizens or permanent residents from receiving SNAP
Last week, MacDonough ruled against a measure that prevented immigrants who are not yet citizens or lawful permanent residents from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

She also rejected another SNAP-related provision that required states to pay a percentage of food assistance under SNAP depending on their individual error rates in delivering food aid. The provision required states to pay between 5 percent and 15 percent of food benefits in 2028, depending on their error rate. Nearly every state has had SNAP error rates of 6 percent or higher.

Extending the suspension of permanent price support authority
MacDonough pushed back against a Republican measure that sought to extend the suspension of permanent price authority, which has traditionally been a part of the farm bill.

The original bill had attempted to end a long-held farm bill practice in which farm commodity programs — the network of subsidies for products such as dairy, corn or rice — that underpin large-scale U.S. agriculture expire every few years, effectively forcing congressional Republicans back to the negotiating table annually to participate in the grand bargain of SNAP and conservation funding in return for farm welfare.

The measure knocked down by the parliamentarian would have extended those subsidies past their normal cutoff to expire in 2031 — which advocates of sustainable agriculture and SNAP warn would have removed any need for farm state legislators to pass any farm bill this decade, because they would have gotten what they needed.

While this would be within bounds of a normal farm bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that legislators couldn’t do it through reconciliation and would therefore need to come up with 60 votes.

Funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
MacDonough has ruled against a provision that would have essentially eliminated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by placing a cap on its funding. The provision would have lowered the agency’s maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating expenses.

She also ruled against several other measures that fell under the control of the Senate Banking Committee, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. One would have cut $1.4 billion in federal costs by lowering the Federal Reserve staff pay.

MacDonough also rejected measures that proposed cutting more than $1 billion in costs by slashing the Office of Financial Research funding and getting rid of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Selling off millions of acres of public land
The Senate parliamentarian ruled against a provision championed by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that would have sold off millions of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land in up to 11 states.

Lee, in a post on the social platform X, said he would revamp the plan. The new legislation will still sell off land owned by the Bureau of Land Management — but not land owned by the Forest Service.

He also said he would “SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE” the amount of land in the bill, limiting it only to lands within 5 miles of a population center.

Easing offshore oil and gas project compliance
MacDonough blocked a provision that would deem offshore oil and gas projects as automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act.

She also rejected a measure in the bill that required offshore oil and gas leases to be issued to successful bidders within 90 days after their sale.

She also said Republicans could not include a provision in the bill that requires the Interior secretary to OK the construction of Ambler Road, a more than 200-mile-long access road that would facilitate the development of four large mines and hundreds of smaller mines in northern Alaska.

Forcing the Postal Service to sell electric vehicles
The bill originally contained language that sought to undo Biden administration rules meant to encourage electric vehicle use. The Senate parliamentarian rejected a provision that would force the General Services Administration, which handles the equipment used by government agencies, to sell all the eclectic vehicles used by the U.S. Postal Service.

However, a policy that would rescind funds passed by Democrats to allow the Postal Service to purchase extra electric vehicles and charges is still in the bill.

Repeal EPA rule limiting air pollution emitted by passenger vehicles
The bill targeted several Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, including one that restricts air pollution emissions from passenger vehicles. MacDonough said late last week that Republicans could not include that measure in the “big, beautiful bill.”

Allowing project developers to bypass judicial environmental reviews
Republicans also wanted to change the National Environmental Policy Act to allow project developers to fast-track environmental reviews or prevent judicial reviews if they paid a one-time fee, according to Politico. MacDonough ruled against the measure.

Altering the REINS Act
MacDonough also said Republicans could not include a modified version of the REINS Act in the bill. The measure would have increased congressional power over big regulations, according to Axios.

Philosophizing

Why people buy things they don't need, with money they haven't earned, to impress people they don't like.

Wealth as a symbol of social parasitism.

Eat The Rich

A Health Influencer

BTW - when 23 million Americans aren't getting enough to eat, it's time to make some real changes.

Fuck the rich

Feed the poor

Or feed the rich to the poor

But yeah - fuck the rich

Marginal Utility

• If you're making $60K, and you get shorted $1000, you notice that, and it hurts - it matters.
• If you're making $600K, and you get shorted $1000, it's no big deal at all - it really isn't.
• If you're making $60M, and you get shorted $1000, you don't even know it's missing.

To Have And Have Not

• Biden's tax plan would've raised taxes on people making over about $400K.
• Republicans are busy killing the federal government in order to finance another tax cut that will not deliver much of a benefit to anyone making under about $360K.

But we told Biden to get lost because was too old, and then 60 million of us stayed home instead of voting for the black lady who wanted to make government a little bit better partner for workin' folks.

We are the stupid country.

We don’t understand that 200k isn’t rich. It’s still working class.
byu/Altruistic_Income256 inTikTokCringe

Republicans want to pretend their tax cuts are free. A new report says otherwise.

The Congressional Budget Office has bad news for the GOP.

Republicans have a trifecta, which means they’re trying to pass more expensive tax cuts that will disproportionately go to the rich.

How expensive? They’ll cost $4 trillion over the next decade and would increase upward pressure on the debt ratio by 50 percent. How disproportionate? America’s top 0.1% would get a tax cut of $278,000 while 28 million households in the bottom 80 percent would have no change in their tax bill and 14 million in the bottom 80 percent would actually have their taxes go up.

In looking for ways to extend those cuts, Republicans face two problems.

What’s different is that, this time around, much of what they’re trying to do is currently in effect but set to expire — and Republicans are not pretending the tax cuts will pay for themselves (because they don’t). Instead — and I am not making this up — they’ve just decided to say the costs don’t count. They’re free.

How did we get here? Back in 2017, Trump and congressional Republicans enacted the Trump tax cuts. Because they used a process known as budget reconciliation — the same process they’re using now — most of those cuts are set to expire at the end of 2025.

In looking for ways to extend those cuts, Republicans face two problems.

First, the tax cuts cost $4 trillion over the 10-year budget window, and Republicans can’t even get close to finding a way to pay for them, but some of them don’t feel comfortable with adding that much to the deficit. The House GOP’s proposal attempts to offset some of the extension by kicking millions of people off Medicaid and cutting food benefits down to just $1.67 per person per meal on average. Yet deficits would still increase by around $3 trillion over the decade.

The second problem is that, in order to pass a bill under reconciliation, the bill’s costs beyond the tenth year have to be fully paid for. If Republicans want to make these tax cuts permanent, they must find a way to pay for them in the long term. Given that their conference can’t even really agree on the cuts to pay for one-third of their tax bill, getting the votes for much bigger cuts would be an enormous lift.

So, now Republicans have a new strategy: pretend the tax cuts are free. Magic!

They’re claiming that, because we’ve already been incurring the costs, continuing them shouldn’t count as a new cost. Republicans endorsing this strategy include House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who says the Trump White House favors the strategy.

The CBO’s report goes on to say that extending the Trump tax cuts would harm the economy and increase consumers’ borrowing costs.

Unsurprisingly, this is an enormous gimmick. The most fundamental rule of budget scorekeeping is that all costs are always scored at some point. You can score them all up front, or you can score them again and again as you keep extending the program. But what Republicans are asking for, despite getting scored on a temporary basis in 2017 when the tax provisions were first enacted and thus getting to avoid being scored for some of the cost, is to now be scored as free to continue. That means some of the costs would never be scored. No program in the entire budget receives that treatment.

But while Republicans can pretend the costs are free, the Treasury Department will have to finance these expensive tax cuts. That means incurring new debt.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that permanently extending the Trump tax cuts without paying for them would in fact be very costly. The national debt “would reach 214 percent of GDP in 2054, 47 percentage points higher” than if the tax cuts aren’t extended. The CBO’s report goes on to say that extending the Trump tax cuts would harm the economy and increase consumers’ borrowing costs.

For the moment, the scoring method used isn’t entirely in Republicans’ hands. The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s expert on procedure and precedents, advises on whether bills meet the rules for reconciliation, and she is unlikely to let Republicans pretend their tax cuts are free.

We’ll likely know the parliamentarian’s answer within the next few weeks. If, as expected, she says no, Republicans have four options: accept her ruling, fire her, ignore her or vote on whether to overrule her — which would require only a simple majority. Depending on their choice, we’ll know whether Republicans will use make-believe to protect the wealthiest Americans, or whether we’ll remain tethered to reality.

you are always 4 or 5 really bad months

away from living in a homeless camp

you are never 4 or 5 really good months

away from becoming a billionaire

Reminder

Taxing rich people now

means we won't have

to eat them later

Welfare For The Rich Folks

Oh, Elmo

I like to believe that someday, we'll start to think real people doing real things is what's admirable, and not just this week's PT Barnum. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Paraphrasing Tolstoy

I sit on a man's back -

forcing him him carry me -

as I promise to do everything possible

to ease his burden -

with the exception of getting off his back.

It's The Class, Stupid

Another one talking about how it's not a Red vs Blue thing, or Left vs Right, or anything that has anything to do with anything but rich people fucking us with our pants on.