This is more than the general republican wish to hurt poor people to help the wealthy. This is about the tRump tax cut give aways to the very wealthy in the US costing the add of 8 trillion to the national debt. The republicans wrote the bill so the minor cuts to the lower income’s taxes sunset with in a couple years, but the wealthy people got to keep theirs for ten years. Now they are due to sunset and the government will receive a huge influx of revenue again to pay the bills of running a country, paying for the world’s largest bloated military, and to help the poorest people in the country survive with some dignity. But tRump and the republicans are determined to make those cuts permanent and never ending while constantly pushing for more cuts to their taxes. Their goal is to push the entire cost of running the government on to those least able to pay for it, the lower incomes while the upper incomes pay little to nothing. Then using the complaints of the people that their taxes are too high they will cut social services and the social safety nets for the poorest among us including the elderly and disabled. Plus they will stop funding road repairs and other infrastructure projects and when people complain will privatize the roads, selling sections to companies who will be able to charge tolls of any amount they wish to make profit off the public needing to get somewhere. How we stop them I don’t know. Idiots worried about the price of eggs bought every lie tRump made about how he was going to magically bring all the prices down to 2020 levels … when the stores were empty and we had no toilet paper. Now he admits that he can not and will not be lowering prices, and the cult is not getting upset about being lied to by the leader of their cult. Hugs
lawmakers estimating Trump’s domestic policy agenda — including tax cuts and border security proposals — costing as much as $10 trillion over the coming decade.
House Republicans are passing around a “menu” of more than $5 trillion in cuts they could use to bankroll President-elect Donald Trump’s top priorities this year, including tax cuts and border security.
The early list of potential spending offsets obtained by POLITICO includes changes to Medicare and ending Biden administration climate programs, along with slashing welfare and “reimagining” the Affordable Care Act.
Five people familiar with the document said those provisions are options to finance Republicans’ massive party-line reconciliation bill or other spending reform efforts, including those being spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
The people, granted anonymity to discuss closed-door negotiations, said that the list originated from the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas). Republicans involved in the reconciliation plans have been generally targeting the listed programs for several months, but internal GOP fights over trillions of dollars in potential cuts are just beginning.
The overall savings add up to as much as $5.7 trillion over 10 years, though the list is highly ambitious and unlikely to all become law given narrow margins for Republicans in the House and Senate.
Cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the country’s largest anti-hunger program would spark massive opposition from Democrats and would also face some GOP resistance. House Speaker Mike Johnson can’t afford any Republican defections if he wants to pass a package on party lines.
Even proposed cuts to green energy tax credits, worth as much as $500 billion, could be tricky — as the document notes, they depend “on political viability.” Already 18 House Republicans — 14 of whom won reelection in November — warned Johnson against prematurely repealing some of the IRA’s energy tax credits, which are funding multiple manufacturing projects in GOP districts.
A House GOP source said that the “document is not intended to serve as a proposal, but instead as a menu of potential spending reductions for members to consider.”
Johnson and GOP leaders are hunting for trillions of dollars in cuts, with lawmakers estimating Trump’s domestic policy agenda — including tax cuts and border security proposals — costing as much as $10 trillion over the coming decade.
Johnson, with scores of House Republicans this week to chart the way forward, and groups of GOP members are set to meet with Trump in Florida this weekend.
In addition to Medicaid and ACA cuts, the document floats clawing back bipartisan infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act funding.
One senior GOP lawmaker, asked if there were any particularly controversial spending offsets dividing Republicans, replied: “They all feel pretty controversial.”
Johnson agreed to make $2.5 trillion in spending cuts through the budget reconciliation process as part of last year’s government funding negotiations. Asked in a brief interview Wednesday evening if he was targeting $5 trillion in spending offsets, he replied, “Not sure yet.”
The policy menu suggests Republicans could capture major savings from Medicaid — up to an estimated $2.3 trillion. The list includes so-called per-capita caps on Medicaid for states, meaning the program would be paid for based on population instead of being an open-ended entitlement, and would institute work requirements in the program.
The list also includes a policy to equalize payments in Medicaid for able-bodied adults with those of traditional Medicaid enrollment — those with disabilities or low-income children, which would save up to $690 billion.
It would “recapture” $46 billion in savings from Affordable Care Act health insurance plan subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year, setting up a major policy battle. It would also limit eligibility for plans based on citizenship status.
Also on the chopping block are President Joe Biden’s climate policies, which are estimated to yield as much as $468 billion. That includes Trump’s repeated promise to repeal Biden’s “EV mandate,” as well as discontinuing “Green New Deal” provisions from the bipartisan infrastructure law and green energy grants from the IRA.
The green energy cuts could be particularly tricky from a political perspective. GOP lawmakers have long backed some technologies supported under the climate law, including supporting hydrogen, biofuels and carbon capture.
‘Concerns About A Stronger-Than-Expected Economy’ Is A Real CNN Thing We Just Read by Rebecca Schoenkopf
Oh no everybody’s got jobs. This is terrible news for stonks! Read on Substack
Now that Yr Wonkette is doing thinky pieces instead of trying to keep up with every last bit of news, we won’t feel obligated to bring you every monthly jobs report, but golly, this story from CNN sure is a ride. Looka this headline: “Stocks tumble following blowout jobs report.”
Hey, Bobby.
We are informed that US stocks “plunged” Friday in response to a much better-than-expected jobs report for December, showing that the economy added 256,000 jobs, way more than the 153,000 jobs that Wall Street economists predicted. Investors were reportedly worried that meant that the Federal Reserve will be too nervous about possible inflation to make more interest rate cuts anytime soon:
The Dow dropped by 697 points, closing at 41,938, while the S&P 500 fell by 1.5% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq index was lower by 1.6%.
The three indices all finished the week in the red as Friday’s selloff erased the week’s previous gains.
That’s one way to report the strong job growth, which was accompanied by a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.1 percent.
Or the numbers could also be reported with headlines like these, from ABC News and NBC News, respectively:
You know, just in case you needed a reminder that the stock market is not the economy, the stock market is not the economy, and did we also mention that the stock market is not the economy?
Traders now expect just a 2.7% chance the Fed will cut rates at its policy meeting later this month, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.
The Russell 2000 index, which tracks smaller companies, fell 2.2%, highlighting concerns about the impact of “higher for longer” interest rates.
And yes, it’s quite true that higher interest rates can be a drag on the economy, which is how the Fed deploys them, sometimes too aggressively, to keep inflation in check.
The story also noted that returns on 10-year Treasury notes,
spiked to 4.76% and the yield on the 30-year US treasury rose to 4.95%.
Rising yields signal concern about a stronger-than-expected economy, resurgent inflation and potentially fewer rate cuts in 2025 than anticipated.
Let’s just repeat that: “concern about a stronger-than-expected economy.” In other words, the strong economy that Joe Biden is handing off to Donald Trump as he leaves office is primarily a concern for big investors, not necessarily the rest of us proles out there.
The contrast in perceptions was evident even in the video attached to the CNN stocks story, which focuses more on the jobs numbers than on stocks. Reporter Matt Eagan was almost giddy, saying, “This is really good news for Main Street, right? It shows that workers are still very much in demand.” Eventually he did get to the response on Wall Street, but before that, Egan pointed out that yet again, workers’ buying power increased because wage growth outpaced inflation, yay.
Unemployment rate at 4.1%, widely considered to be “full employment.” Wages have risen 3.9% over the past 12 months, outpacing the inflation rate 2.8% during this period.
Rosenberg also helpfully reminds us that net job creation under Biden — 16.6 million jobs — is far greater than under the last three Republican presidents (Trump and both Bushes) combined, a piddling 1.9 million. Yes, yes, that includes the pandemic shock for Trump and the recovery of those jobs under both Trump and Biden — some nine million of ‘em lost and regained all told; roughly half of the bounceback occurred under Trump in the second half of 2020. But the pandemic job losses were all restored by June 2022, far earlier than most economists predicted, meaning that Biden’s economy has added around 6.8 million jobs since regaining the pandemic losses.
On the whole, the economy in 2024 added 2.2 million jobs, returning to something like the pre-pandemic job growth rate, and — we’re gonna say it again — reaching a “soft landing” from the high inflation that hit every industrialized country in the world following the pandemic and its disruption of supply chains. Joe Biden also pulled off something rarely seen in US history: Job gains in every single month of his presidency.
So congratulations, Mr. Trump. After cleaning up the mess made by the 2008 economic crash, Barack Obama handed you an economy that kept growing until the pandemic hit. Now Joe Biden, after getting things on track in the wake of the pandemic, will leave behind what just might be the best economy any incoming president has inherited.
We live in a world where right-wing nationalism is on the rise and many governments, including the incoming Trump administration, are promising mass deportations. Trump in particular has discussed building camps as part of mass deportations. This question used to feel more hypothetical than it does today.
Faced with this reality, it’s worth asking: who would stand by you if this kind of authoritarianism took hold in your life?
You can break allyship down into several key areas of life:
Who in your personal life is an ally? (Your friends, acquaintances, and extended family.)
Who in your professional life is an ally? (People you work with, people in partner organizations, and your industry.)
Who in civic life is an ally? (Your representatives, government workers, individual members of law enforcement, healthcare workers, and so on.)
Which service providers are allies? (The people you depend on for goods and services — including stores, delivery services, and internet services.)
And in turn, can be broken down further:
Who will actively help you evade an authoritarian regime?
Who will refuse to collaborate with a regime’s demands?
These two things are different. There’s also a third option — non-collaboration but non-refusal — which I would argue does not constitute allyship at all. This might look like passively complying with authoritarian demands when legally compelled, without taking steps to resist or protect the vulnerable. While this might not seem overtly harmful, it leaves those at risk exposed. As Naomi Shulman points out, the most dangerous complicity often comes from those who quietly comply. Nice people made the best Nazis.
For the remainder of this post, I will focus on the roles of internet service vendors and protocol authors in shaping allyship and resisting authoritarianism.
For these groups, refusing to collaborate means that you’re not capitulating to active demands by an authoritarian regime, but you might not be actively considering how to help people who are vulnerable. The people who are actively helping, on the other hand, are actively considering how to prevent someone from being tracked, identified, and rounded up by a regime, and are putting preventative measures in place. (These might include implementing encryption at rest, minimizing data collection, and ensuring anonymity in user interactions.)
If we consider an employer, refusing to collaborate means that you won’t actively hand over someone’s details on request. Actively helping might mean aiding someone in hiding or escaping to another jurisdiction.
These questions of allyship apply not just to individuals and organizations, but also to the systems we design and the technologies we champion. Those of us who are involved in movements to liberate social software from centralized corporations need to consider our roles. Is decentralization enough? Should we be allies? What kind of allies?
This responsibility extends beyond individual actions to the frameworks we build and the partnerships we form within open ecosystems. While building an open protocol that makes all content public and allows indefinite tracking of user activity without consent may not amount to collusion, it is also far from allyship. Partnering with companies that collaborate with an authoritarian regime, for example by removing support for specific vulnerable communities and enabling the spread of hate speech, may also not constitute allyship. Even if it furthers your immediate stated technical and business goals to have that partner on board, it may undermine your stated social goals. Short-term compromises for technical or business gains may seem pragmatic but risk undermining the ethics that underpin open and decentralized systems.
Obviously, the point of an open protocol is that anyone can use it. But we should avoid enabling entities that collude with authoritarian regimes to become significant contributors to or influencers of open protocols and platforms. While open protocols can be used by anyone, we must distinguish between passive use and active collaboration. Enabling authoritarian-aligned entities to shape the direction or governance of these protocols undermines their potential for liberation.
In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s clear acquiescence to the incoming Trump administration (for example by rolling back DEI, allowing hate speech, and making a series of bizarre statements designed to placate Trump himself), I now believe Threads should not be allowed to be an active collaborator to open protocols unless it can attest that it will not collude, and that it will protect vulnerable groups using its platforms from harm. I also think Bluesky’s AT Protocol decision to make content and user blocks completely open and discoverable should be revisited. I also believe there should be an ethical bill of rights for users on open social media protocols that authors should sign, which includes the right to privacy, freedom from surveillance, safeguards against hate speech, and strong protections for vulnerable communities.
As builders, users, and advocates of open systems, we must demand transparency, accountability, and ethical commitments from all contributors to open protocols. Without these safeguards, we risk creating tools that enable oppression rather than resisting it. Allyship demands more than neutrality — it demands action.
January 11, 1952 The Peace Pledge Union organized “Operation Gandhi,” which became the first British protest against nuclear weapons. Ten members staged a “sit-down” at the War Office in London. =================================== January 11, 1998 Twenty-five thousand occupied the site of one of 30 dams to be built on the Narmada River in India. They objected to a World Bank-funded project to build 30 large, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to harness the waters of the Narmada and its tributaries to provide electrical power and irrigation to Gujarat and Rajasthan provinces.Local residents known as Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada movement), organized as they became concerned about their livelihoods, the dams’ environmental impact and a host of other issues. The largest proposed dam, Sardar Sarovar, would submerge 61 villages and displace more than 320,000 people. A Brief Introduction to the Narmada Issue International Rivers project ===================================== January 11, 2002 The first of the detainees/enemy combatants arrived at Guantánamo Bay, the U.S. military base on the southeastern coast of Cuba. Detainees in a plane on their way to Guantanamo Detailed report of the status of Guantánamo detainees
The 119th Congress was officially sworn in Friday, meaning the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate will soon begin the process of confirming President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution enables the president to appoint officials to the Cabinet and other positions with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Many of the committees, all of which have a majority of Republicans, will hold hearings on the nominees related to their area of expertise: the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, holds hearings for the nominees for attorney general and other top posts at the Department of Justice. Those hearings will begin soon, with senators likely prioritizing confirming nominees to national security positions.
Republicans will control the Senate 53 to 47 seats once Senator-elect Jim Justice of West Virginia is sworn in later in January and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appoints a senator to fill Vice President-elect JD Vance’s seat.
Some nominees like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, are expected to easily sail through the Senate, while others are likely to garner more opposition and scrutiny. Here’s how the process will work:
When do hearings start?
Sen. Roger Wicker, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, is set to hold Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing for secretary of defense starting January 14, even before Trump’s inauguration. The hearing for former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee is also set to take place that week, according to Punchbowl News. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to prioritize confirming Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, and his nominees for deputy attorneys general before taking up the nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, the outlet reported.
Are hearings required for every nominee?
Not necessarily. There are over 1,300 political appointee positions that require Senate confirmation, and some nominees, like military promotions, often go straight to the Senate floor. But nominees for the Cabinet and other high-profile political appointments almost always have confirmation hearings.
What happens at a confirmation hearing?
Before a hearing, senators on relevant committees will request biographical information and a financial disclosure from the nominee. At the hearing, senators will ask questions about a nominee’s background, their qualifications and their views. Nominees for positions that require a security clearance also traditionally undergo an FBI background check.
Gabbard and Patel are expected to draw scrutiny for their records and stances on national security issues. Democrats will likely question Hegseth about a past allegation of sexual assault against him, which he denies, as well as his previous comments opposing women in combat roles. Senators on both sides of the aisle are also likely to question Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, on his views on abortion, vaccines and food policy.
How does a nominee get confirmed after a hearing?
After a committee holds a hearing, its members can report the nomination favorably or unfavorably to the full Senate for a final vote. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led his fellow Senate Democrats in changing the chamber’s rules to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture, or end debate, on presidential nominations other than Supreme Court nominees. A simple majority is also needed for final confirmation. In 2017, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans also lowered the threshold for Supreme Court nominees.
Historically, it’s been very rare for the Senate to reject a president’s Cabinet nominee. The last time the Senate voted down a Cabinet nominee was in 1989, when senators rejected Sen. John Tower, then-President George H.W. Bush’s nominee for defense secretary, due to concerns about his drinking. Some Cabinet nominees like former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s first pick for attorney general, also bow out of the process before they go up for confirmation.
One change Meta made this week was to eliminate restrictions on some attacks on immigrants, women, and transgender people. Specifically, its hateful conduct policy now allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like ‘weird.’”
Meta has long supplemented its public community standards with nonpublic guidelines that it shares with employees and contractors charged with enforcing its policies. The guidelines give moderators examples of what is and is not allowed.
Today, Platformer is sharing some of those guidelines.
In an answer to the question “Do insults about mental illness and abnormality violate when targeting people on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?” Meta now answers “no.” It gave the following examples of posts that do not violate its policies:
Non-violating: “Boys are weird.” Non-violating: “Trans people aren’t real. They’re mentally ill.” Non-violating: “Gays are not normal.” Non-violating: “Women are crazy.” Non-violating: “Trans people are freaks.”
And in a follow-up questions about whether denying that a protected class violates the hateful content policy, Meta also answers no. It gave these as examples of posts that are now allowed on Facebook and Instagram: (snip-MORE. This is from the guy who left Substack a while back. I don’t want to steal from him. It’s free to read.)
Hi Everyone. I woke at 12:22 last night. But I got up at 1 am and started making posts and doing things. So I just finished the asshat yesterday news posts. So now before I answer the comments … and I love comments everyone sends to me, I have to make a red sauce. Ron promised to make me a grand lasagna if I make the sauce. So with ear buds in, off I go to make the sauce. Hugs and loves to everyone. Remember that I really care for everyone. Add any questions or comments in the comments and I will reply there. Hugs.
If you criticize the dear leader of the maga cult then you are forever an enemy. Death to the nonbelievers. This is why the current republicans and maga is very much a cult. Hugs.
This is great. The tRump world crowed about this citizen of Greenland who praised tRump’s plan to take over Greenland. Yet the truth did come out … He was a tRump loving fanboy violent felon drug dealer prison escapee. Hugs.
10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo killings by Ann Telnaes
On January 7, 2015 the editorial cartooning community suffered a horrible blow Read on Substack
The attack at the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo left 12 people dead, including five cartoonists, and set off a worldwide debate about free speech and satire.
January 8, 1912 = The African National Congress was founded in South Africa. The ANC (now multi-racial) was the first black political organization in South Africa. It was formed to combat the racially separatist system known in the Afrikaans language as apartheid. The ANC is now the majority party in the South African government. African National Congress history ================================== January 8, 1961 The people of France voted to grant Algeria its independence in a referendum. This followed more than 130 years of French colonial control of the north African country. The result was a clear majority for self-determination, with 75% voting in favor. Read more =================================== January 8, 1973 U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho resumed secret peace negotiations near Paris. After the South Vietnamese had blunted the massive North Vietnamese invasion launched in the spring of 1972, Kissinger and the North Vietnamese had finally made some progress on reaching a negotiated end to the war. However, a recalcitrant South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu had inserted several demands into the negotiations that caused the North Vietnamese negotiators to walk out of the talks a month earlier. Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger ================================== January 8, 2003 Three activists, including Kate Berrigan (daughter of Phil) and Liz McAlister, rappelled down a 32-story skyscraper near the Los Angeles Auto Show and unfurled a banner reading “Ford: Holding America Hostage To Oil.” They had chosen Ford due to its having the lowest average fuel economy of any auto manufacturer, and that it was not living up to the reputation it put forth as being an environmental car company. Frida Berrigan tells the story
=
Scottie's Playtime 