Yeah, the one that fits your anti-Republican agenda.

Well obviously the more you earn, the more you save – that's how percentages work! The high earners also pay the most tax overall. In 2014, people earning above $250,000 paid 51.6% of all individual income taxes, even though they accounted for only 2.7% of tax payers.

Edited by Penge Eagle (21 Dec 2017 6.49pm)

Taxing Puerto Rico as a foreign country is another classic. Someone forgot to tell Trump that those Sea Mexicans are actually U.S. citizens. Imposing a 12.5% import tax on goods from Puerto Rico - when 35% of the island remains without electricity and some areas aren't going to get any power until next May at the earliest - seems somewhat vindictive and unnecessary.

What's really interesting is that the Governor of PR has vowed to mobilise the "diaspora" of Puerto Ricans on the mainland against any politician who voted for this bill. He reckons he has enough votes to swing districts in 14 states, notably in Florida where displaced Puerto Ricans are settling in large numbers right now. All they need to do is register to vote a their new home address. Trump won Florida by 112,911 votes...

Edited by Ray in Houston (21 Dec 2017 8.07pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

This CDC statement is partly damage limitation I'd say. Once this leaked, there is going to be a denial of sorts or as close as is possible. The original article suggested they "should avoid using certain words or phrases in official documents being drafted for next year’s budget".
This is the official rebuttal:

The CDC said there are no banned words at the CDC. That isn't what the allegations even were though as it related to words being off limits from being used in the budget. Therefore, this is likely intentionally, a denial of something that wasn't even claimed to begin with.

This goes on to say that the CDC is committed to science. In a carefully worded manner it goes out of its way not to deny that certain words are avoided. Nothing here denies that certain words were suggested to be avoided in the budget and for good reason, since that did happen. It denies something that wasn't in the original piece and leaves this well alone. But yes, the 'banned' angle that caught on on other sites, may have been a misrepresentation, it depends how much pressure is or was applied.

I appreciate that the original article may have been turned into a headline elsewhere which in affect didn't accurately represent the situation. You're right to say that it's easy to get taken in by the headline rather than the reality. It appears that instead the agency may be fearful of using certain words preempting consequences of doing so. The CDC should be free to use any language that accurately reflects their findings without fear of consequence.

For months, climate change reference have been cleansed from government websites in the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department department. Other similar pushes regarding language have happened too and so this is not new.

Much in the same way, the 'guidance' document, obtained by the washington post, did indeed list specific words as ones to avoid when drafting the budget document including “vulnerable,” “diversity” and “entitlement”.

"HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd confirmed that agency officials created the document but said they did not ban any words outright. The document was distributed to budget offices in the department’s operating divisions, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, an HHS official said.

“It was interpreted as ‘you are not to use these words in the budget narrative,’ ” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal agency communications.

They are treading carefully in how they address this story, because they either fear using certain words or have outright been told not to, but yes sites cutting out the fine detail have not given the full picture and have simplified something to a point that doesn't reflect the full picture - just as Tim Pool cuts out a decent chunk of the obvious nuance that exists regarding the usage of these words. Where there is an audience there is an angle.

Edited by wordup (23 Dec 2017 5.53pm)

Thanks for your contribution.

[Link]

This article shows that the narrow classical economic model favored by tax cut proponents demonstrates that the recently well publicised pay bumps announced in the wake of this policy are nothing more than political messaging and not due to the impact of the economics. The reality is only a small gain by companies will end up in the pockets of employees who will lose their meagre tax cuts in a couple of years and end up worse off in the long run. It's Political junk as it's very unpopular but republicans will lie and use their favourite cards of race, guns and religion to try and divert the attention of the electorate come the midterms next year.

One interesting point to note is that about one third of the benefit will go to foreign shareholders so Trump is actually giving more away to foreigners than to the vast majority of US citizens.

He's a liar and a hypocrite.

You're over-exaggerating his role. The downward trend in joblessness started in 2010 and the growth forecasts that have been fulfilled were projected before he became President.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]