Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Options
1…178179181183184…667

Comments

  • Options
    #5402
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Biden looking to increase the IRS budget by $1.2Bn with $900M of that earmarked to audit wealthy individuals and corporations.


  • Options
    #5403
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    everlast75 wrote: »
    He referred to Matt Gaetz as Rick Gates.

    He referred to Tim Cook as Tim Apple.

    He referred to the town "Paradise" as "Pleasure".

    Think harder.

    He referred to Kevin McCarthy as 'Steve'.

    And of course, this almighty corker:

    https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1307463977501425664?s=20


  • Options
    #5404
    Real Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Real Donald Trump


    Mod: Week off for breaching your threadban


  • Options
    #5405
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

    This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.


  • Options
    #5406
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,234 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

    This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.

    Don't ever say that if you want anyone, and I mean anyone, to take a point that you are trying to make seriously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5407
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Biden ready to put the boot in on "good friend" Ireland.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/biden-corporation-tax-5403772-Apr2021/

    This will decimate our economy but hey orange man bad.

    Previous american presidents have had this policy since our low corporate tax became a thing, did you hold them in the same scrutiny?


  • Options
    #5408
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,200 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Biden's ideas on corporate tax do go beyond what previous POTUS's were about. They're actually pretty aggressive per the analysis in Slate:

    https://slate.com/business/2021/04/joe-biden-tax-havens-corporate-global-minimum.html

    Only 10 countries need to go along with 'minimum tax rate' of 21% for 80% of the multinational profits to be taxed at the higher rate.

    I don't see how this could be good for Ireland, FDI is a big part of our economy and it seems like we have very little home-grown industry to replace it.


  • Options
    #5409
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Biden's ideas on corporate tax do go beyond what previous POTUS's were about. They're actually pretty aggressive per the analysis in Slate:

    https://slate.com/business/2021/04/joe-biden-tax-havens-corporate-global-minimum.html

    Only 10 countries need to go along with 'minimum tax rate' of 21% for 80% of the multinational profits to be taxed at the higher rate.

    I don't see how this could be good for Ireland, FDI is a big part of our economy and it seems like we have very little home-grown industry to replace it.

    We would want to double down as a tax shelter and oppose this, we need those jobs


  • Options
    #5410
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Biden has created a bipartisan commission into SCOTUS reform with the report due in 6 months. The report will not make recommendations on any particular reforms that’ll be left to Biden.

    It’ll be very interesting to see what it says about term limits and appointing a new Judge during the last few months of a sitting president’s term.


  • Options
    #5411
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    We would want to double down as a tax shelter and oppose this, we need those jobs

    And we will still get them. American multinationals already set up here aren’t going to leave because of this and any American MNC worth its salt will want to set up an EU base eventually. We appeal to that market because we’re the only English-speaking country in the bloc.

    What it should be though is a kick up the arse to sort out infrastructure, transport and housing to enhance our pitch further.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5412
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Biden has created a bipartisan commission into SCOTUS reform with the report due in 6 months. The report will not make recommendations on any particular reforms that’ll be left to Biden.

    It’ll be very interesting to see what it says about term limits and appointing a new Judge during the last few months of a sitting president’s term.

    I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

    I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.


  • Options
    #5413
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

    I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.

    I agree, it was a GOP stunt and nothing else but it’s out there now so it’ll pop up again and again until a solution is agreed. Term limits could be that solution, other than that I don’t know enough about the process to make any guesses.


  • Options
    #5414
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Previous american presidents have had this policy since our low corporate tax became a thing, did you hold them in the same scrutiny?

    Their policies don't compare to what Biden is attempting.

    If/when FDI does a runner because of it things will get very hairy here indeed. We have the square root of fcuk all domestic economy to sustain or current standard of living.


  • Options
    #5415
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Faugheen wrote: »
    I don’t think appointing judges in the last few months of a sitting President’s term should be an issue. If a vacancy arises then that President should be entitled to fill it. The GOP were the ones who completely ****ed that one up.

    I think term limits should absolutely be a thing, though. If that was introduced then it would render the point about appointments in the final few months a bit more redundant.

    Presidents don't fill judge positions. They only nominate. the power to appoint lies with congress.


  • Options
    #5416
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?


  • Options
    #5417
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Water John wrote: »
    Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?

    it should be. 9 isn't a magical sacrosanct number.


  • Options
    #5418
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    11, 13 or 15 would be better. One post filling wouldn't have as much impact. Also many shades of opinion in different areas would come through the judgements, it would be more nuanced.


  • Options
    #5419
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Water John wrote: »
    Is the number of SCOTUS Judge members up for discussion?

    Hopefully not, the democrats have only put it on the table because theyre upset they havent got it stacked anymore.

    Anyone agreeing with expansion under dem oversight would be the first people to go into meltdown if the republicans re expanded it again to regain control


  • Options
    #5420
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.


  • Options
    #5421
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,274 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Water John wrote: »
    Not looking for it to be stacked by either extreme. The bigger the Court, the more reliable the decision.

    I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
    I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

    It might be interesting to have a rule where the court must always have more judges appointed by the opposite party. That means one would have to be fired when the Senate changes hands (with a replacement nominee and alternate selected by the previous congress), it would likely be the most “extreme” judge. That would prohibit this potential court-packing tit for tat we’re talking about and, encourage judges to take a more centrist viewpoint. Of course, zero chance of it happening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5422
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,200 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
    I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

    It might be interesting to have a rule where the court must always have more judges appointed by the opposite party. That means one would have to be fired when the Senate changes hands (with a replacement nominee and alternate selected by the previous congress), it would likely be the most “extreme” judge. That would prohibit this potential court-packing tit for tat we’re talking about and, encourage judges to take a more centrist viewpoint. Of course, zero chance of it happening.

    Of course. There's no notion of political party in the Constitution. However, preventing the Senate from ignoring a President's nomination (to any court, not just the USSC) should be fixed.

    Term limits for USSC judges makes sense these days, people live a lot longer than when the Constitution was drawn up.


  • Options
    #5423
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Imagine if Trump had tried to increasing the numbers of the court, there'd have been absolute ructions

    I'd imagine most of the people on here trying to justify any such move President Biden have the self awareness to know full well the extent of their own double standards. Must be weird to be so internally compromised.


  • Options
    #5424
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I find your use of the word “reliable” interesting.
    I think that’s the point. The only reason folks are talking about increasing the court is to ensure the ideological majority is reliably in agreement with the ideology of the party currently in power. It does not necessarily make for better decisions, but more reliable ones.

    it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.


  • Options
    #5425
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,313 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Bambi wrote: »
    Imagine if Trump had tried to increasing the numbers of the court, there'd have been absolute ructions

    I'd imagine most of the people on here trying to justify any such move President Biden have the self awareness to know full well the extent of their own double standards. Must be weird to be so internally compromised.

    He’s not actually trying to do it, you do understand that. Someone was giving a hypothetical idea. Must be weird to be getting outraged about absolutely nothing.


  • Options
    #5426
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    My use of the word, reliable, referred to the opinion of the SCOTUS being largely in line with present public thinking, in any matter, obviously within the confines of what's actually written down in the document. Certainly have no time for the originalists.
    On the other hand, if some part of the Constitution conflicts with modern society, then it's up to the people to amend it, not the SCOTUS job.


  • Options
    #5427
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,863 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.
    You mean a bit like social media?


  • Options
    #5428
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    eagle eye wrote: »
    You mean a bit like social media?

    yeah, thats exactly what I meant. FFS.


  • Options
    #5429
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,274 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it would certainly make for decisions more in line with the majority of the population. I always thought that was the point but I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong.

    Nope, not the point at all. If the desired outcome of the judicial process of interpreting and applying laws is supposed to line up with the changing wills of the population, the correct thing to do is to have the peoples’ voted representatives change the laws just like they are supposed to do. You try to change the laws, not try to control the court.


  • Options
    #5430
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,316 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Nope, not the point at all. If the desired outcome of the judicial process of interpreting and applying laws is supposed to line up with the changing wills of the population, the correct thing to do is to have the peoples’ voted representatives change the laws just like they are supposed to do. You try to change the laws, not try to control the court.

    so you don't think the makeup of the supreme court should reflect the makeup of the population? that it is right for the majority of the supreme court to make judgements from a political interpretation that the majority of the population are opposed to?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5431
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I think rather than reflecting the makeup on the population the SCOTUS should be apolitical and judge issues based on the constitution, not their interpretation of it. (I know that is impossible but it should be reduced as much as possible).

    When there is clear ambiguity in the constitution, the US needs to have more referendum to actually sort it out.

    Clearly the US needs to have a ref on abortion. Another one on gun control.


Advertisement