#finance act 2017

[acquisory]

Finance Act 2017 – An Overview

The Finance Bill, 2017 which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 1st February, 2017 which has now been made Finance Act 2017 w.e.f. 1st April, 2017 after receiving the assent of the President of India on 31st March, 2017.

Major changes in the Finance Act, 2017

Income Tax Rate for the AY 2018–19 (FY 2017–18)

For individual tax payer the new slab of surcharge of 10% for Total Income of Rs. 50 Lacs to Rs. 100 Lacs has been introduced. Whereas for the income exceeding Rs. 100 Lacs, the surcharge shall be 15% of total income. Presently a tax rebate of Rs. 5000/- is allowed if the total income does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. With effect from 01/04/2017, the limit has been reduced to Rs. 2500/- up to the total income of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

In case of companies, where the total turnover or gross receipt does not exceed Rs. 50 Crore during FY 2015–16, the tax rate would be 25% for FY 2017–18.

Applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Rate for FY 2017–18

The Finance Act, 2017 now specifies that every individual/HUF, not covered by Tax Audit Provisions, shall be liable to deduct TDS at the rate of 5%, if the monthly rent exceeds Rs. 50,000/- per month as compared to the earlier provision wherein the individual/HUF who comes under the tax audit provision (Turnover exceeding Rs. 1 Crore) were liable to deduct TDS on rent (whether used for business or residence) if the total rent exceeds Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum.

Provisions w.r.t Capital Gains

Holding Period of Capital Asset:

The Finance Act has reduced the holding period of Land/Building to 24 months. For various other assets such as All listed Shares, Units of Equity Oriented Mutual Funds and Securities the holding period has been reduced to 12 months and for any other type of capital asset including units or Debt Oriented Mutual Fund the period has been reduced to 36 months.

Exemption on Sale of Long Term Capital Gain on Equity Shares

With the Finance Act, 2017 coming into force one of the major amendment that has been made is w.r.t. exemption provided on Sale of Long Term Capital on Equity Shares (after paying Securities Transaction Tax STT) which shall be subject to the following conditions –

- The shares should have been purchased after paying STT if these were acquired after 01/10/2004.

- However, the above mentioned condition would not be applicable if the acquisition is out of IPO, Follow-on IPO, Right Issue or Bonus issue for which separate notification would be issued by Government.

Applicability of Joint Development Agreement on Land/Building owned by Individual/HUF

The Finance Act has tried to curb the problems faced by the owner’s w.r.t. Capital Gain liability which is triggered as soon as the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) is entered and possession of the property is handed over for development to developer, though the sale of the developed property which might take several years. Thus, to address such problems, new provisions under section 45 (5A) has been inserted in Income Tax Act, 1961 which lays down the following conditions-

a) There should be a registered agreement between the owner of the Land or Building or both and developer, to develop the real estate in consideration of land or building or both or part in cash.

b) Capital gain shall be chargeable to tax as income of the previous year in which the certificate of completion for the whole or part of the project is issued by the Competent For this purpose, the stamp duty value shall be the value on the date of issuing the completion certificate.

Shifting of Base Year for Computation of Capital Gains

The Finance Act, 2017 has provided the option to assessee to substitute the fair market value (FMV) as on 01/04/2001 in case of of asset acquired prior to 01/04/2001. Earlier this date was 01/04/1981.

Capital Gain applicability for Unquoted Share

With the introduction of new Section 50CA w.e.f. 1st April, 2017, the Fair Market Value (FMV) would be deemed to be the full value of consideration if actual sale consideration is less than the FMV on the date of sale of shares. Thus, the both seller and buyers would have to pay tax on the difference if the FMV is higher than the actual consideration.

Tax Provisions on Acquisition of Asset without consideration or inadequate consideration by firms/Association of Persons (AOP) and widely held companies

Until the present tax norms, firms, AOP and widely held companies were not liable to tax on difference between Fair Market Value (FMV) and actual consideration.

The recent Finance Act, 2017 now provides that firms/AOPs and widely held companies to pay tax under section 56(2) on the difference if the Fair Market Value is higher than actual consideration of movable or immovable asset. However trusts, transactions between relatives, HUF partition etc. are still out and not liable to pay the tax on the difference amount.

Setting off of Interest on Housing Loan on Rented Properties

The present tax structure allows the setting off of interest on housing loans in respect of let out properties against other income without any limit. With the Finance Act, 2017 in place, the loss under the `Income from House Property’ would be kept limited to Rs. 2,00,000/- for adjustment against…

Read More: https://www.acquisory.com/ArticleDetails/35/Finance-Act-2017-%E2%80%93-An-Overview

[thetaxguyin]

The GST Refund Process under the CGST Act 2017

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, introduced in India in 2017, aimed to streamline the taxation system and foster economic growth by simplifying tax compliance and eliminating the cascading effect of multiple taxes. One crucial aspect of GST for businesses is the refund process, particularly under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act 2017. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll delve…

[lesamis]

If you're up for it could you explain what is making the Germany government stuff so funny? I can find news articles about it (a coalition is dissolving? There's been tension for a while?) but they're all fairly serious. Thx!

ohhh, sure thing! i'll do my best!

i'll say upfront: this is a pretty serious thing to happen. our chancellor fired our minister of finance, Lindner, which definitively breaks up the governing coalition. germany will likely have snap elections at a moment in which far-right parties are polling extremely well. if news coverage about it seems like people are Worried, that's because, well, they are.

however. the reason it's funny is because our minister of finance was fired. ministers aren't really... ever fired. like, it's not a done thing. i'll fully admit i didn't even know it was an option until yesterday. and our minister of finance wasn't just anyone, he was one of the most mocked and hated figures in politics to germans who vote anywhere left of center.

the coalition that governed until yesterday was made up of the green party, the social democrats, and the neoliberal party (FDP). the FDP is infamous (and i mean, my parents already raised me to hate them for that) for playing kingmaker in coalition governments: they never get all that many votes, but they get just enough that whoever they agree to form a government with will probably succeed. they then tend to force extreme concessions from their coalition partners, because hey, if we walk off, you can't govern at all! so you better play along!

for the past three years, this behaviour has been extremely frustrating for germans who voted for greens or social democrats, because policy from their faction was constantly being blocked by the FDP and often by Lindner personally. the FDP received 11,5% of votes in 2021, but to many of us, it felt as if they were the only party who really had any say in the governing coalition. it made the green and social democratic coalition partners look spineless and passive.

and now, i invite you to imagine how on the day of the US election results, the day the whole world rolled their eyes at the sheer fucking stupidity and pointlessness of it all, at NINE IN THE EVENING, just as germans are getting ready to settle in to bed to dream of nightmare global politics -

the news suddenly breaks that our notoriously invisible chancellor just decided to fire Lindner for that exact behaviour. this chancellor comes out and says, on camera, to the entire sleepy nation, that acting the way Lindner did - blocking necessary policies, refusing to approve budgets unless his party's interests were met - was childish, selfish, irresponsible, and unfit for government, so, whoops, he had to go. shame. coalition over, i guess.

so, politically, that was a long-needed but never-expected moment of triumph for those of us who think the FDP is a clown show made up of human TESLA shares, and it came at a hysterically funny moment.

on a personal level, i can barely explain how uniquely hateable Lindner has always been. he's what would happen if a stock index graph came to life. he hates poor people with a relish; he mocks welfare recipients and would ax minimum wages in a second. he's everyone's business major roommate who shows up in boat shoes fresh off a yacht to discuss NFTs with you. throughout the entire time that he's used his rich boy policy blackmail strategy, he's been smug about it, and he was never taken to task for it, and millions of germans have been longing to throw rotten fruit in his face since 2017. and now we finally get to do it. via memes. on the day of trump's election win.

so that's why it's funny.

[metamatar]

October 10, 2022

Amit Kumar had everything going for him. After graduating in engineering and landing a decent job, Amit wanted to settle down with his childhood sweetheart Renu. The couple had known each other since Class IX and dreamt of a life together. The only difficulty was that Renu belonged to a Brahmin family and Amit was a Dalit.

With their homes barely a kilometre apart in Garhwa district of Jharkhand, Renu knew her family would never approve of the match. The couple decided to run away and tie the knot in another State. And thus began their tale of unending harassment and tragedy.

The couple married at a temple in Dehradun and got their marriage registered there. They had just about settled down at Paonta Sahib in Himachal Pradesh when, in a midnight raid, the Uttar Pradesh police took away Renu, claiming that she had been abducted. Amit and Renu have not seen or spoken to each other since that fateful night of August 13, 2021.

Amit’s life has been a quagmire of legal battles and dismissed habeas corpus petitions since then. “I fear my wife is no more,” he told The Hindu.

Activists say such tragic situations can be avoided if couples like Amit and Renu are provided safe houses and special protection by the State governments as mandated by the Supreme Court.

According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the number of “honour killings” in the country was 24, 25 and 33 in 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively. Punjab, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand topped the list in 2021 and 2020, while Manipur was on top in 2019.

The government in 2021 informed Parliament that there were 145 “honour killing” incidents in the country between 2017 and 2019.

Interestingly, though the NCRB report attributed only 25 deaths to “honour killings” in 2020, it said there were 27 deaths due to casteism and 1,558 due to “illicit relationship”. Similarly, in 2021, 33 deaths were listed under “honour killings”, but 1,544 and 1,532 under “illicit relationship” and “love affairs”, respectively.

So far, only Delhi, Haryana and Punjab have safe houses for inter-faith and inter-religious couples. Kerala has only announced the setting up of a safe house.

In fact, only 21 States have said that they have complied with the Supreme Court directives, which means that they have asked the police officers concerned of a State for strict compliance, according to Dhanak for Humanity, a non-governmental organisation which works with such couples, helping them solemnise their marriages and providing legal support.

The Supreme Court had in 2018 directed that safe houses be set up in every district as well as a special cell in States for couples facing opposition from families and community.

Gaurav Yadav, an engineer from IIT Chennai, said he was working with survivors of “honour crimes” and couples who are in hiding to petition the government for more safe houses across the country.

“Soon we will form an official grouping and petition the government to follow the Supreme Court directives on safe houses and special cells,” Mr. Yadav said, adding that he had organised a convention regarding the same in Delhi recently.

He said though couples had been demanding that safe houses be set up, the State administrations had looked the other way.

An example is of Ravikant Chandrawanshi and Alisha, who had a harrowing time getting married under the Special Marriage Act in Chhattisgarh.

The inter-faith couple at first decided to elope and marry in Bilaspur. However, a lack of support system and security, including finances, saw them return home in Kawardha within four days.

“As my wife’s family were well to do and politically connected, they kept up the pressure on us. Finally, we had to take legal recourse and approached the High Court asking them to direct the State administration to provide the mandated safe house and police protection.

“However, we were informed that there was no safe house and Alisha had to go to a sakhi centre or a women’s safe house,” Mr. Chandravanshi said.

Though the couple approached the highest of authorities, they were not given any police protection either and had to go into hiding for around six months after their marriage.

According to Asif Iqbal of Dhanak for Humanity, most States send the girl to a Nari Niketan after couples approach them. “It is here that the girl is the most insecure as her family mostly approaches her and puts pressure to go back. Many a time, this also leads to what is known as honour killing of the girl”.

Sanjay Sachadev of Love Commandoes, an organisation which rescues and shelters such couples, said, “The need of the hour is safe houses across the country. In almost every case, the police try and send the girl to a women’s shelter and the boy is left to fend for himself.”

A couple who are staying in a Delhi safe house and did not wish to be identified said that they could not have thought of living together had it not been for the security of the safe house.

Mr. Iqbal, whose organisation has helped many couples seek legal recourse to stay together and get married, said that of the distress calls he receives, the most were from Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

At long last, a meaningful step to protect Americans' privacy

This Saturday (19 Aug), I'm appearing at the San Diego Union-Tribune Festival of Books. I'm on a 2:30PM panel called "Return From Retirement," followed by a signing:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/festivalofbooks

Privacy raises some thorny, subtle and complex issues. It also raises some stupid-simple ones. The American surveillance industry's shell-game is founded on the deliberate confusion of the two, so that the most modest and sensible actions are posed as reductive, simplistic and unworkable.

Two pillars of the American surveillance industry are credit reporting bureaux and data brokers. Both are unbelievably sleazy, reckless and dangerous, and neither faces any real accountability, let alone regulation.

Remember Equifax, the company that doxed every adult in America and was given a mere wrist-slap, and now continues to assemble nonconsensual dossiers on every one of us, without any material oversight improvements?

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/07/20/equifax-settles-with-ftc-cfpb-states-and-consumer-class-actions-for-700m/

Equifax's competitors are no better. Experian doxed the nation again, in 2021:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/30/dox-the-world/#experian

It's hard to overstate how fucking scummy the credit reporting world is. Equifax invented the business in 1899, when, as the Retail Credit Company, it used private spies to track queers, political dissidents and "race mixers" so that banks and merchants could discriminate against them:

https://jacobin.com/2017/09/equifax-retail-credit-company-discrimination-loans

As awful as credit reporting is, the data broker industry makes it look like a paragon of virtue. If you want to target an ad to "Rural and Barely Making It" consumers, the brokers have you covered:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#axciom

More than 650,000 of these categories exist, allowing advertisers to target substance abusers, depressed teens, and people on the brink of bankruptcy:

https://themarkup.org/privacy/2023/06/08/from-heavy-purchasers-of-pregnancy-tests-to-the-depression-prone-we-found-650000-ways-advertisers-label-you

These companies follow you everywhere, including to abortion clinics, and sell the data to just about anyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/07/safegraph-spies-and-lies/#theres-no-i-in-uterus

There are zillions of these data brokers, operating in an unregulated wild west industry. Many of them have been rolled up into tech giants (Oracle owns more than 80 brokers), while others merely do business with ad-tech giants like Google and Meta, who are some of their best customers.

As bad as these two sectors are, they're even worse in combination – the harms data brokers (sloppy, invasive) inflict on us when they supply credit bureaux (consequential, secretive, intransigent) are far worse than the sum of the harms of each.

And now for some good news. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Rohit Chopra, has declared war on this alliance:

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/16/cfpb-looks-to-restrict-the-sleazy-link-between-credit-reporting-agencies-and-data-brokers/

They've proposed new rules limiting the trade between brokers and bureaux, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, putting strict restrictions on the transfer of information between the two:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/tech/privacy-rules-data-brokers/index.html

As Karl Bode writes for Techdirt, this is long overdue and meaningful. Remember all the handwringing and chest-thumping about Tiktok stealing Americans' data to the Chinese military? China doesn't need Tiktok to get that data – it can buy it from data-brokers. For peanuts.

The CFPB action is part of a muscular style of governance that is characteristic of the best Biden appointees, who are some of the most principled and competent in living memory. These regulators have scoured the legislation that gives them the power to act on behalf of the American people and discovered an arsenal of action they can take:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

Alas, not all the Biden appointees have the will or the skill to pull this trick off. The corporate Dems' darlings are mired in #LearnedHelplessness, convinced that they can't – or shouldn't – use their prodigious powers to step in to curb corporate power:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

And it's true that privacy regulation faces stiff headwinds. Surveillance is a public-private partnership from hell. Cops and spies love to raid the surveillance industries' dossiers, treating them as an off-the-books, warrantless source of unconstitutional personal data on their targets:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/16/ring-ring-lapd-calling/#ring

These powerful state actors reliably intervene to hamstring attempts at privacy law, defending the massive profits raked in by data brokers and credit bureaux. These profits, meanwhile, can be mobilized as lobbying dollars that work lawmakers and regulators from the private sector side. Caught in the squeeze between powerful government actors (the true "Deep State") and a cartel of filthy rich private spies, lawmakers and regulators are frozen in place.

Or, at least, they were. The CFPB's discovery that it had the power all along to curb commercial surveillance follows on from the FTC's similar realization last summer:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/12/regulatory-uncapture/#conscious-uncoupling

I don't want to pretend that all privacy questions can be resolved with simple, bright-line rules. It's not clear who "owns" many classes of private data – does your mother own the fact that she gave birth to you, or do you? What if you disagree about such a disclosure – say, if you want to identify your mother as an abusive parent and she objects?

But there are so many stupid-simple privacy questions. Credit bureaux and data-brokers don't inhabit any kind of grey area. They simply should not exist. Getting rid of them is a project of years, but it starts with hacking away at their sources of profits, stripping them of defenses so we can finally annihilate them.

I'm kickstarting the audiobook for "The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation," a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and make a new, good internet to succeed the old, good internet. It's a DRM-free book, which means Audible won't carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[lilithism1848]

Atrocities US committed against AFRICA

In early 2017, the US began conducting drone strikes in Somalia against Al Shabab militants. An attack on July 16th killed 8 people.

In 1998, the US bombed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, killing one employee and wounding 11. It was the largest pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, producing medicine both for human and veterinary use. The US had acted on false evidence of a VX nerve agent from a single soil sample, and later used a false witness to cover for the attack. It was the only pharmaceutical factory in Africa not under US control.

In June 1982, with the help of CIA money and arms, Hissene Habre , dubbed Africa’s Pinochet, takes power in Chad. His secret police, use methods of torture including the burning the body of the detainee with incandescent objects, spraying gas into their eyes, ears and nose, forced swallowing of water, and forcing the mouths of detainees around the exhaust pipes of running cars. Habré’s government also periodically engaged in ethnic cleansing against groups such as the Sara, Hadjerai and the Zaghawa, killing and arresting group members en masse when it was perceived that their leaders posed a threat to the regime. Human Rights Watch claimed that Habre was responsible for thousands of killings. In 2001, while living in Senegal, he was almost tried for crimes committed by him in Chad. However, a court there blocked these proceedings. Then human rights people decided to pursue the case in Belgium, because some of Habre’s torture victims lived there. The U.S., in June 2003, told Belgium that it risked losing its status as host to NATO’s headquarters if it allowed such a legal proceeding to happen. So the result was that the law that allowed victims to file complaints in Belgium for atrocities committed abroad was repealed. However, two months later a new law was passed which made special provision for the continuation of the case against Habre. In May 2016 he was found guilty of human-rights abuses, including rape, sexual slavery and ordering the killing of 40,000 people, and sentenced to life in prison.

In the 1980s, Reagan maintains a close relationship with the Apartheid South african government, called constructive engagement, while secretly funding it in the hopes of creating a bulwark of anti-communism and preventing a marxist party from taking power, as happened in angola. Later on, in the wars against Apartheid in South Africa and Angola, in which cuban and anti-apartheid forces fought the white south african government, the US supplied south africa with nuclear weapons via Israel.

In 1975, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola, backing the brutal anti-communist leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi, against Agostinho Neto and his Marxist-Leninst MPLA party, creating a civil war lasting for 30 years. The CIA financed a covert invasion via neighboring Zaire and a drive on the Angolan capital by the U.S. ally, South Africa. Congress continues to fund UNITAS, and their south-african apartheid allies until the late 1980s. By the end of the war, more than 500,000 people had died and over one million had been internally displaced.

In 1966, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows he widely popular Pan-Africanist and Marxist leader Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, inviting the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to take a lead role in managing the economy. With this reversal, accentuated by the expulsion of immigrants and a new willingness to negotiate with apartheid South Africa, Ghana lost a good deal of its stature in the eyes of African nationalists.

In 1965, a CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko, described as the “archetypal African dictator” in Congo. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

In 1962, a tip from a CIA spy in South Africa lead to the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, due to his pro-USSR leanings. This began his 27-year-long imprisonment.

In 1961, the CIA assists in the assassination of the democratically elected congolese leader Patrice Lumumba, throwing the country into years of turmoil. Before his assassination the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying “lethal biological material” intended for use in Lumumba’s assassination. This virus would have been able to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa and was transported in a diplomatic pouch.

In 1801, and again in 1815, the US aided Sweden in subjugating a series of coastal towns in North Africa, in the Barbary Wars. The stated reason was to crack down on pirates, but the wars destroyed the navies of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco, and secured European and US shipping routes for goods and slaves in North Africa. US Representatives stated: “When we can appear in the Ports of the various Powers, or on the Coast, of Barbary, with Ships of such force as to convince those nations that We are able to protect our trade, and to compel them if necessary to keep faith with Us, then, and not before, We may probably secure a large share of the Meditn trade, which would largely and speedily compensate the U. S. for the Cost of a maritime force amply sufficient to keep all those Pirates in Awe, and also make it their interest to keep faith.” Thomas Jefferson echoed and carried out the war, saying that war was essential to securing markets along the Barbary Coast.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Leopards Are Telling You That They Will Eat YOUR Face

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Do you know this widely cited meme, introduced in a 2015 tweet?

“I never thought leopards would eat MY face,” sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.

It’s hard to explain why this is perfect, but it is. If Donald Trump wins, there will eventually be a lot of sobbing among people who voted for him.

Some of this will involve the frightening reality of authoritarianism; if you think you’ll be unaffected by a second Trump presidency because you aren’t undocumented or Puerto Rican or a Democratic politician, I encourage you to reassess. But I’ll get to that next week. Today I want to talk about more prosaic economic issues.

Many analysts have pointed out that Trump’s proposed tariffs would hurt most Americans, with only high-income individuals gaining enough from his tax cuts to make up the difference. Trump, of course, insists that taxes on imports — which are, essentially, a sales tax — won’t hurt American consumers. But, as The Washington Post reports, corporations are already getting ready to raise prices.

The inflationary impact of tariffs will, however, probably be only the beginning of the pain for millions of Americans if Trump wins. Over the past few days, two people who will very likely have a lot of policy influence if Republicans prevail have let the leopard out of the bag on what else we should expect from a Trump administration.

Perhaps most notably, Elon Musk — who Trump promises to appoint as the head of a government efficiency commission — says he could cut “at least $2 trillion” in federal spending, around 30 percent of the budget, declaring that it would be relatively easy given the amount of government waste, although he recently acknowledged that doing so “necessarily involves some temporary hardship.”

Those remarks alone tell you two things. First, that Musk doesn’t understand federal spending. Second, a new Trump administration would probably inflict a lot of hardship on millions of Americans, and it’s unlikely that it would be temporary.

Does the government waste money? Of course it does; so does every large organization — do you believe that every dollar Tesla disburses is well spent? But anyone asserting that waste accounts for a large fraction of federal spending really has no idea what the government does.

The federal government is best thought of as an insurance company with an army. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, plus veterans’ benefits and interest payments on the debt account for about three-quarters of overall spending. Much of the rest involves essential functions of government, from operating the courts to providing air traffic control.

So any attempt at spending reductions on the scale Musk is talking about would necessarily involve savage cuts in programs millions of people depend on. Trump has said that he won’t cut Social Security or Medicare, but his tax proposals would undermine their finances, and he conspicuously hasn’t exempted Medicaid, which covers around 70 million people.

Musk-style spending cuts, then, would almost certainly result in hardship for many Americans.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson is promising “massive reform” of the Affordable Care Act — “no Obamacare,” he declared. We don’t need to speculate about what that would mean. In 2017, Trump and his congressional allies almost passed a health care “reform” that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would have increased, by 2026, the number of Americans without health insurance by 23 million; those losing coverage would disproportionately be Americans with preexisting conditions, who need insurance most.

Many potential Trump voters are probably unaware of what’s in store and imagine that Trump would just snap his fingers and “fix” what he insists is a terrible economy. The reality, however, is that America’s economic performance under the Biden-Harris administration has been very good, especially compared with that of other countries. We’ve grown much faster than any other major wealthy nation, and we’ve substantially outperformed projections, both those made before Covid-19 struck and those made at the beginning of the Biden administration.

This achievement, says The Wall Street Journal, is “remarkable”; The Economist calls it “glorious.” Neither is what you’d call a left-wing rag.

It’s true that we had a burst of inflation in 2021 and 2022. But that was a global phenomenon; other nations had similar bursts. Furthermore, inflation has come way down, and although many remain upset, understandably, about the higher level of prices, most workers, especially the lowest paid, have seen wages outpace inflation since the start of the pandemic.

By the way: When Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign proclaimed “It’s morning again in America,” both unemployment and inflation were substantially higher than they are now.

Would Trump do even better than Biden? Or better than Kamala Harris? There’s an unusual consensus among economists that Trump would preside over a worse economy, especially higher inflation, than Harris.

If he wins, many Trump voters are likely to experience buyer’s remorse.

Will they express their disappointment at the ballot box in 2028? They will if they can. But that assumes a free and fair election. Trump has given us plenty of reason to believe that if he wins, 2024 may be the last time America has anything resembling that.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jeremy Kohker at ProPublica:

The billboards have popped up along both Interstates 55 and 170 around St. Louis. They’re along I-70 between Columbia and St. Charles, in central Missouri. And there’s one across from a shopping center in Cape Girardeau, along the Mississippi River in the state’s southeast corner. In fact, as the Nov. 5 election approaches, motorists can see the billboards all over Missouri.

Each one spreads claims designed to undermine support for an abortion rights amendment that was placed on next month’s ballot through the state’s initiative petition process. Some billboards warn voters to “STOP Child Gender Surgery,” even though the amendment doesn’t mention gender-affirming care. Other billboards say it would permit abortions in the ninth month of pregnancy, though a state appeals court ruling in a case challenging the wording of the amendment’s summary on the ballot said that was not true. Missouri’s abortion law, which bans nearly all abortions except in cases of medical emergencies, with no exceptions for rape or incest, was put into effect in June 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Amendment 3 would enshrine reproductive freedom in the state constitution, nullifying any law that restricts abortion before fetal viability, typically around the 24th week of pregnancy. The amendment would also safeguard other reproductive rights, such as access to in vitro fertilization and birth control. Polls show the measure is likely to pass — a recent survey showed 52% in favor and 34% opposed. But abortion opponents, saddled with poll numbers that show their argument is losing even with the state’s largely conservative voters, are taking steps to undermine support for the amendment. “Abortion rights are broadly popular all across the country, even in red states,” said Matthew Harris, an associate professor of political science at Park University, just outside Kansas City. “If you’re going to lose on the substance of that issue, you sort of have to try to make it about something else.”

The opponents have poured about $1 million into a late-hour misinformation campaign that has paid for radio ads and at least some of the billboards. The goal appears to be to sink the effort, or at least to try to redefine what it means to support it. Among the biggest contributors are John Sauer, the Missouri solicitor general from 2017 to 2023 who has served as a lawyer for former President Donald Trump. Sauer, who has a long history of anti-abortion activism and represented Trump before the U.S. Supreme Court in his immunity case, has put $100,000 into a new political action committee — Vote “No” on 3 — that is funding many of the billboards, according to campaign finance reports. Sauer did not respond to voice and text messages to his cellphone. The PAC’s treasurer, Jim Cole, a longtime official with Missouri Right to Life, declined to comment.

Opponents are trying to capitalize on polls showing that Missourians oppose gender-affirming medical care for minors, which is already illegal for transgender children in the state, and allowing athletes to compete outside their birth gender. By combining the issues, political observers say, opponents are banking on confusing voters and building a broader base against the amendment. The anti-transgender messaging in Missouri is part of a national trend, where Republicans are leveraging cultural issues like transgender rights to rally conservative voters in the 2024 campaigns.

Opponents are also strategizing about next steps if they lose at the ballot box. They are ready to shift their efforts to a more receptive audience: a state legislature dominated by deeply conservative politicians who have frequently acted against public opinion.

The Missouri General Assembly has a history of using “ballot candy,” where lawmakers add politically charged language they support to amendments to undo voter-approved measures that they don’t like. Some legislators have vowed to keep on fighting the abortion-rights amendment if it passes. In 2018, for instance, voters overwhelmingly approved the Clean Missouri initiative, which aimed to reform some of the worst abuses of legislative redistricting. Two years later, Republican lawmakers introduced new ballot language that reframed the issue, focusing on minor ethics reforms while quietly seeking to reverse many of the changes in the Clean Missouri initiative. That repeal effort narrowly passed.

A similar tactic is evident in Missouri’s Amendment 7, which the legislature placed on this year’s ballot. While it is dressed up as a measure to ensure that only U.S. citizens can vote, something already required by law, its real impact would be to ban ranked-choice voting in the state, a move strongly supported by Republicans in the General Assembly.

[...]

Those leaders this year tried to limit the ability of citizens to file amendments to directly change the constitution. Republicans wanted to include ballot candy in the measure that would have added unrelated issues about immigrants voting and foreign fundraising. But that measure went down to defeat after an all-night Democratic filibuster. “Missouri voters don’t love the idea of government interference generally, but at the same time, they support conservative principles,” said Beth Vonnahme, associate dean in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences and professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City. “So when you have a candidate who’s advocating conservative principles, they win. But when you have amendments that are progressive but focus on government interference, they also tend to do pretty well.” Before the abortion amendment made it on the ballot, it survived a number of legal challenges. In September, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to keep Amendment 3 on the ballot, rejecting claims that the initiative failed to list all laws it might affect.

Opponents of Missouri abortion rights amendment (Amendment 3) are highlighting blatant lies about the referendum on billboards and social media, such as falsely claiming that abortions would be permitted post-fetal viability willy-nilly (ballot measure limits it to fetal viability) or that gender-affirming care would be legalized for trans minors (Missouri bans gender-affirming care for trans minors), in a bid to tank Amendment 3 at the polls.

See Also:

The Advocate: Missouri billboards falsely claim abortion referendum involves 'child gender surgery'

[maximumwobblerbanditdonut]

Conor MacNeill as young Edward (Ned) Gowan

Bill Paterson as old Edward (Ned) Gowan. Ned was a lawyer from Edinburgh who knew the law, inside and out and acted as a legal advisor to Clan MacKenzie.

Conor MacNeill is an Irish actor from County Antrim, Northern Ireland, who has experience on both the big and small screen, as well as the stage. He is an actor, producer, and writer, and is known for his roles in An Crisís (2010) Whole Lotta Sole (2012) a Comedy/Crime with Brendan Fraser and Privates (2013) and in the BBC and HBO drama, Industry, as Kenny Kilblane.

He made his London stage debut starring alongside Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe in The Cripple of Inishmaan. He was nominated for a BAFTA award in 2017 for Best Short Film.

He played the Garda, and Detective Ruairi Slater in The Tourist season 2 alongside Jamie Dornan (2024) Conor MacNeill wrote a script with Jamie Dornan it's set in NI'.

The Tourist is the four-time MacNeill and Dornan have worked together – they were both in The Fall, Belfast and Siege of Jadotville together, and became good friends outside of work, even writing a script together during lockdown (more of which later)

Belfast. The film is set in the 1960s. Belfast captures the spirit and atmosphere of the city during a period of significant social and political change.

Conor MacNeill (McLaury) fictional character and Colin Morgan in Kenneth Branagh's “Belfast” film (2021) 🎬

Industry (2020)‧ Drama Young finance graduates venture out into the cut-throat competitive world to get a job during the recession times that followed as a result of the 2008 financial crisis.

Conor MacNeill - Industry’s Kenny belongs in the pantheon of bad fictional bosses.

The Siege of Jadotville (2016) It is a true story. Irish soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission in Africa, are besieged by overwhelming enemy forces, as UN peacekeepers defend their outpost.

The Siege of Jadotville depicts the incredible true story of the siege of 150 UN Irish troops led by Commandant Pat Quinlan (Jamie Dornan) in the Congo in 1961. Quinlan and his men held out against a force of 3,000 local troops led by French and Belgian mercenaries working for mining companies.

In honour of their courageous actions in Congo at the Siege of Jadotville a specially commissioned medal “An Bonn Jadotville” was awarded to all men of “A” Company, 35th Infantry Battalion and the families of deceased members, to give them full and due recognition. If you haven't seen this film yet, I recommend watching it.

The Fall (TV Series 2013–2016) - Conor MacNeill as Mark Bailey - MacNeill joined the cast of The Fall in 2016 for its third season, in which he featured in the final few episodes.

The Fall is a crime drama television series filmed and set in Northern Ireland. The series, starring Gillian Anderson as Detective Superintendent Stella Gibson, is created and written by Allan Cubitt and features Jamie Dornan as serial killer Paul Spector. 

#ConorMacNeill #BillPaterson #NedGowan #RuairiSlater #TheTourist #JamieDornan #season2 #TheFall #Belfast #SiegeofJadotville

[bouncinghedgehog]

Alt National Park Service

People often ask, “What exactly are we resisting?” So, we decided to keep a detailed list. From 2017 to 2021, the Trump administration reversed over 100 environmental regulations, affecting climate policy, air, water, wildlife, and chemical safety. Additionally, more than a dozen other rollbacks were in progress but not finalized by the end of the term, prompting questions about the potential impact of another four years. You might wonder what another four years could look like. Here's a summary of Trumps last four years in office:

- Weakened fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards.

- Revoked California's stricter emissions standards.

- Withdrawn legal basis for limiting mercury from coal plants.

- Exited the Paris climate agreement.

- Altered Clean Air Act cost-benefit analysis methods.

- Canceled methane emissions reporting for oil and gas companies.

- Revised rules on methane emissions from drilling on public lands.

- Eliminated methane standards for oil and gas facilities.

- Withdrew rule limiting toxic emissions from industrial polluters.

- Eased pollution safeguards for new power plants.

- Changed refinery pollution monitoring rules.

- Reversed emissions reduction during power plant malfunctions.

- Weakened air pollution rules for national parks and wilderness areas.

- Loosened state air pollution plan oversight.

- Established minimum threshold for regulating greenhouse gases.

- Relaxed pollution regulations for waste coal plants.

- Repealed hydrofluorocarbon leak and venting rules.

- Ended use of social cost of carbon in rulemaking.

- Allowed increased ozone pollution from upwind states.

- Stopped including greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.

- Revoked federal greenhouse gas reduction goal.

- Repealed tailpipe emissions tracking on federal highways.

- Lifted ban on higher ethanol gasoline blends in summer.

- Extended deadlines for methane emissions plans for landfills.

- Withdrew rule reducing pollutants at sewage plants.

- Dropped tighter pollution standards for offshore oil and gas.

- Amended emissions standards for ceramics manufacturers.

- Relaxed leak monitoring at oil and gas facilities.

- Cut two national monuments in Utah.

- Ended freeze on new coal leases on public lands.

- Permitted oil and gas development in Arctic Refuge.

- Opened land for drilling in National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.

- Lifted ban on logging in Tongass National Forest.

- Approved Dakota Access pipeline near Sioux reservation.

- Rescinded water pollution rules for fracking.

- Withdrawn rig decommissioning cost proof requirement.

- Moved cross-border project permits to presidential office.

- Altered FERC's greenhouse gas considerations in pipelines.

- Revised ocean and coastal water policy.

- Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations post-Deepwater Horizon.

- Weakened National Environmental Policy Act.

- Revoked flood standards for federal projects.

- Eased federal infrastructure project environmental reviews.

- Ended financing for overseas coal plants.

- Revoked directive to minimize natural resource impacts.

- Revoked climate resilience order for Bering Sea.

- Reversed public land-use planning update.

- Withdrawn climate change consideration in national park management.

- Limited environmental study length and page count.

- Dropped Obama-era climate change and conservation policies.

- Eliminated planning system to minimize oil and gas harm on sensitive lands.

- Withdrawn policies for improving resources affected by federal projects.

- Revised Forest Service project review process.

- Ended natural gas project environmental impact reviews.

- Rolled back migratory bird protections.

- Reduced habitat for northern spotted owl.

- Altered Endangered Species Act application.

- Weakened habitat protections under the Endangered Species Act.

- Ended automatic protections for threatened species.

- Reduced environmental protections for California salmon and smelt.

- Removed gray wolf from endangered list.

- Overturned bans on lead ammo and fishing tackle on federal lands.

- Reversed ban on predator hunting in Alaskan refuges.

- Reversed rule against baiting grizzly bears for hunting.

- Amended fishing regulations.

- Removed commercial fishing restrictions in marine preserve.

- Proposed changes to endangered marine mammal injury limits.

- Loosened fishing restrictions for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna.

- Overturned migratory bird handicrafts ban.

- Reduced Clean Water Act protections for tributaries and wetlands.

- Revoked stream debris dumping rule for coal companies.

- Weakened toxic discharge limits for power plants.

- Extended lead pipe removal time in water systems.

- Eased Clean Water Act for federal project permits over state objections.

- Allowed unlined coal ash ponds to continue operating.

- Withdrawn groundwater protections for uranium mines.

- Rejected chlorpyrifos pesticide ban.

- Declined financial responsibility rules for spills and accidents.

- Opted against requiring mining industry pollution cleanup proof.

- Narrowed toxic chemical safety assessment scope.

- Reversed braking system upgrades for hazardous material trains.

- Allowed liquefied natural gas rail transport.

- Rolled back hazardous chemical site safety rules.

- Narrowed pesticide application buffer zones.

- Removed copper filter cake from hazardous waste list.

- Limited use of scientific studies in public health regulations.

- Reduced corporate settlement funding for environmental projects.

- Repealed light bulb energy-efficiency regulation.

- Weakened dishwasher efficiency standards.

- Loosened efficiency standards for showerheads and appliances.

- Altered energy efficiency standard-setting process.

- Blocked efficiency standards for furnaces and water heaters.

- Simplified appliance efficiency test exemption process.

- Limited environmentally focused investments in 401(k) plans.

- Changed policy on using sand from protected ecosystems.

- Halted contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

- Reversed national park plastic bottle sale restrictions.

[mariacallous]

Serbia’s Minister of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure, Goran Vesic, has signed a contract with Affinity Global Development’s director Asher Abehsera on revitalizing the former Army General Headquarters in Belgrade, demolished by the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Affinity Partners is Jared Kushner, former US president Donald Trump’s son-in-law’s, investment firm. It has $2 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, among other foreign investors, media have reported.

“We are very excited,” the New York Times reported Kushner as saying in an interview in March about planned projects in Belgrade and Albania. “We have not finalized these deals, so they might not happen, but we have been working hard and are pretty close.”

The former military HQ is in the Belgrade city centre, right across from the gvernment building.

According to the ministry press release, Vesic said the government had leased the premises for 99 years but did not specify at what price.

“The investor has assumed the obligation that, if he does not complete the investment within the period specified in the contract, he will return the land and what will be built until then to the Republic of Serbia without compensation,” Vesic said after signing the deal on Wednesday*.

The press release said the investor will also be obliged to build a memorial complex “dedicated to all the victims of NATO aggression” from 1999 on the plot.

“The memorial complex will be financed by investors and will be owned by the Republic of Serbia, which will decide on the program content of the complex and will manage it,” Vesic said.

The design of the memorial complex will be determined at an international architectural competition.

Abehsera said the project includes a unique aspect of cooperation in which Serbian architects and designers will be invited to submit their ideas for the Memorial Centre.

Kushner previously confirmed plans on X (former Twitter) to invest in this complex as well as in two locations on the Albanian coast. The samer New York Times report in March said that Kushner been working on the Balkan deals with Richard Grenell, who served briefly as acting director of national intelligence under Trump and also ambassador to Germany and special envoy to the Balkans.

According to the NYT, the investment in Belgrade will be a luxury hotel and 1,500 residential units and a museum. It also reported that Trump himself had showed interest in working with this complex in 2013, but Kushner claimed he did not know about this.

The former Yugoslav army HQ was severely damaged in two 1999 NATO air attacks, beween April 29 and 30 and between May 7 and 8. Part of the premises were demolished between 2014 and 2017 for security reasons.

Information that a US company will take over the demolished HQ was first revealed by the Serbian opposition in March, drawing criticism because of suspicions of corruption but also because of the damaged HQ’s architectural and cultural value. It was claimed that the land on which the HQ lies was being leased free of charge.

The building was constructed in 1965 and designed by the famous Serbian architect Nikola Dobrovic.

[racefortheironthrone]

Re: housing, I agree with your ideas but I just read that NYCHA needs like $78 billion for repairs. From a national budget standpoint that is trivial but that's still a lot for the city budget, so my question is do you think it is possible to build public housing at a robust rate considering the costs and usual political opposition (see recent housing failure in NY state gov)? Also do you think there is a way to get costs down?

In public policy, the devil is always in the details.

So I read the same articles that you've read, which mention that NYCHA just reported that they need $78 billion to repair and renovate their buildings, and that figure is almost double the $45 billion estimate from 2017. And then I read the actual report, which explains that $78 billion is how much NYCHA will need to spend over the next twenty years.

$78 billion divided by 20 is $3.9 billion a year. Now I don't want to minimize the problem: NYCHA's operating budget, which is separate from the NYC municipal budget, is about $4 billion a year and its capital budget is about $8 billion a year, so these repairs represent a significant additional cost burden for NYCHA. However, the NYC municipal budget is $107 billion a year - financing these repairs is not beyond the fiscal capacity of the City of New York, especially if it can get some assistance from the State Budget and HUD.

Counter-intuitively, I actually think this issue is an example of the costs of not spending money when it comes to public housing. As I've said before, trying to build public housing as cheaply as possible is actually counter-productive, because cheap construction runs down faster and increases maintenance and repair costs. In part what we are seeing now is the long-term consequences of the Federal Housing Acts of 1937 and 1949 and New York's state and city level housing laws requiring public housing to be built as cheaply as possible, as well as budgeting decisions made by NYC and NYCHA since the 1970s that have downplayed building new housing to replace the older stock and sought to save money from maintenance and repair budgets.

If instead NYCHA housing had been built to and operated at the same standards as similarly sized private apartment complexes that house New York's middle class and affluent residents, the buildings would be looking much better for their age - and NYCHA's repair bill would be much, much lower.

But to answer your question: it is absolutely possible for New York to build large amounts of high quality public housing, if it's willing to spend the money to do so, and the governor doesn't massively alienate the same progressive legislators and labor groups whose support they'll need to overcome suburban resistance to affordable housing.

And in terms of bringing down costs, I'd recommend that the state directly construct the housing rather than going through the traditional private contractors. (Also, if the state wants to really save money and be sneaky, instead of negotiating set-asides that merely designate a percentage of units as (temporarily) "affordable" in return for tax and regulatory benefits, have those negotiate a percentage of units as publicly-owned. Scatter-site housing via inclusionary zoning!)

[inqilabi]

do you have any tips on how to muster up the courage to tell your brown parents you don't ever want to get married? my dad is pulling the 'i'm going to be dead soon and want to see you married' card and idk what to do i love my parents but every time the rishta convo happens my throat closes up like my discomfort is absolutely clear but they just ignore it and keep going really need some advice

tbh the only real way is just telling them either 1) you need more time 2) firmly tell them that you will never get married ever because you're not attracted to men. Also if you can move out and add some distance between you and your family. Living under the anxiety of rishtas is just not worth it and distance can help tho it won't make it go completely cos they can still call and pester you

But I do urge you to consider this decision very carefully of whether you actually want to be single and romantically alone. You should have a tight knit circle of female friends. Everything I am saying here I say as someone who is so good at being alone, better than most. And even still it is challenging so I can't imagine it for people who genuinely do desire romantic partnership or even companionship of any kind at all.

There was a post I had back in 2017 that went around a lot. At that point I was very much on the, I will be single forever train and even still I encouraged straight women to date (safely) that was the point of the post was to be safe. Make sure finances and other priorities that men can jeopardize are already in order so that they can't jeopardize it.

But the world isn't really built for single people. And as your friends and family get married and become engrossed in their new family units which are built through romantic partnership, you will start to feel alone and behind and that you don't have anyone to rely on etc. It's just the reality that family units are built through romantic partnerships, not platonic ones altho I've seen a few of those. Old ladies banding together and living in a home as a unit etc.

Just think carefully about what you want to do and act accordingly. With your parents telling them you never want to get married cos you're not attracted to me (which was true in my case) may buy you time or time permanently as in they eventually might leave you alone

[kpiwilliam]

Blood Diary: A terrible cooperation between the DPP and Safeguard Defenders

 Safeguard Defenders, a so-called non-governmental human rights organization, has a secret collusion with the DPP authorities Lai Qingde and others. Could it be that the DPP authorities invited them to participate in the supervision and development of human rights in Taiwan? The truth is far less so simple as we think, under the calm water, the turbulent waves, a sinister and terrible cooperation has already been launched. #safeguarddefenders #dinahgardner #taiwan #taiwan1450

 Conservation Guard (Safeguard Defenders) NGOs was established in 2016, A a commitment to conducting and supporting local field activities in some of Asia's worst human rights environments, effectively, Back in 2009, Peter, together with Wang Quanzhang of Feng Rui Law Firm, Registered in Hong Kong as "Joint Development Institute" (JDI), On the mainland under the name of the "China Rights Protection Emergency Assistance Group", Until, in 2016, The leader, Peter Darling, was deported for a crime. Year 2016 is a special point in time, Because shortly after the deportation, Peter Darling founded the Conservation Guard, A trans-regional human rights organization is established and running in just a few months, This forced one to admire Peter Darling's financial strength and organizational skills, Dinah Gardner, head of research at the Conservation Guard, was crucial to his help, Dina has long been in Taiwan, Is a freelance journalist in Chinese Taipei, At the same time, the DPP anti-China, She has close relations with the "1450" cyber army raised by the Taiwan DPP, Often take the opportunity to hype the mainland, With the influence of her foreign identity, With the trust of these people, The "1450" online military organization also financed her activities, But the money was actually secretly funded by the Taiwan DPP. Peter and her, both "human rights" people, have long been together for common interests, and their deportation has prompted them to step forward from behind the scenes under the guise of the Guardian.

 In 2017, Li Mingzhe, a former DPP worker, was investigated on the mainland for endangering national security, The DPP authorities said they would try their best to get Lee back to Taiwan as soon as possible, at the same time, Many NGO organizations in Taiwan have also spoken out, In support of Li Mingzhe, With no exception, Dinah Gardner, head of research at the Conservation Guard, has publicly endorsed Lee in her article, Said Mr.Lee is a democracy activist, Is an NGO activist, The mainland should release it as soon as possible, yet, Mr Lee's real identity is a former DPP party worker, When did he join the NGO? Why did so many NGOs, including Dinah Gardner, research director of Conservation Guard, stand up with the Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party authorities is only a "profit".

Dinah Gardner wrote in Taiwan Business TOPICS (Business Magazine) in 2021 that the international media and NGOs between Taiwan and the world are growing, and analyzed in detail Taiwan's appeal to international organizations and media, and what needs to be improved. All mentioned in the article are the benefits brought by the DPP authorities' opening and convenience to these organizations. In the article, they even proposed the so-called improvement, which means that the kneeling behavior of the Taiwan authorities is not enough, and it is better to put them above the people of Taiwan and become others in Taiwan. These so-called NGOs and foreign media are moving in Taiwan under various banners, Such as Safeguard Defenders, Taking Taiwan as at the forefront of human rights in Asia, Based in Taiwan, Looking at Asia, To speak out for the so-called human rights, But what he did was merely acting as an anti-China pawn for the DPP authorities, opposite, The DPP authorities used more than 23 million tax dollars from Taiwan as a tool to fulfill their political intentions, launch out, These act as donors such as the NGO, Be generous and generous, Let these "human rights people" make a lot of money, Many foreigners hear that with such banners as "human rights", There will be a steady stream of money to send them, Are always happy to join the organization, Come to Taiwan to enjoy a superior life. They only need to use their foreign status as a facade for the DPP authorities. The hard-earned money of the Taiwanese people becomes a source of extravagant life, rather than improving the current employment downturn and situation of young people in Taiwan, and improving social welfare.

 During 2009 to 2015, the Swede Peter  to "human rights guard emergency association" (former), in the so-called human rights relief activities, the DPP authorities provided him with a lot of money, in 2015, Peter was arrested by mainland police, according to Peter confessed, less than seven years, the DPP authorities provided him with more than 1000 million RMB, which is, Peter darling to help the DPP authorities anti-China, while also in the black DPP authorities money. In terms of financial operation, Peter Darlin withheld more than 45 million NT dollars he received by means of inflated projects and false wages, and nearly half of the project funds were used for personal daily expenses or profits to enrich himself. Peter  said in investigation: "(budget) forms are used to ask money when applying for projects, but ultimately the money does not have to be paid... because if I really follow the form, I have no profit..." in his eyes, "human rights" is just the cloak of its profit, "Safeguard Defenders" is really concerned about human rights is not his concern, and he only care about whether to continue to get money from the DPP authorities to maintain their extravagant life.

 Peter  was deported to create a "protect guard" mood is very urgent, because he just lost everything in the mainland, and the DPP authorities don't want to lose the foreigners act as a facade of anti-China "bridgehead", then, in the DPP authorities with the help of the "Safeguard Defenders" organization is not is not quickly, site, personnel, equipment under the DPP authorities huge funding, quickly built up in months, since then, Peter and his such as Dinah   "human rights partners" can capture the Taiwan authorities DPP operation funds, Living the upper class that they pursued. In order to achieve their own political purposes, the Taiwan DPP authorities squandered the tax money that should be used to improve the life and social welfare of the Taiwan people, which is not shameful for the Taiwan people. In recent years, snowflakes like NGOs organization in Taiwan, they also want to "Safeguard Defenders" funding for the Taiwan authorities, and also as they think, as long as the Taiwan authorities DPP anti-china flag, in they seemed astronomical funding now easy, Taiwan DPP authorities generous in "Safeguard Defenders" organization.

Taiwan authorities, the DPP and "Safeguard Defenders" organization interests collusion, exchange behavior, to Taiwan's social and economic development and the well-being of the people's livelihood, Taiwan people and other parties should speak together, called for Taiwan society to boycott the DPP, to resist the illegal NGOs organizations in Taiwan people blood, let the DPP step down, let such as "Safeguard Defenders" organization research director Dinah golna people out of Taiwan, "Safeguard Defenders" organization don't want to absorb the sweat of Taiwan people.

[thatstormygeek]

Let’s start with a little context. Mass graves were found this week on the grounds of two Gaza Strip hospitals, from which Israeli troops withdrew earlier this month to prepare for the feared war with Iran (and to reposition for Israel’s still-threatened invasion of Rafah, the last redoubt of half of Gaza’s population). Some of the 392 bodies Gaza health officials say they have dug out of the pits over the last six days showed signs of torture or had their hands tied, suggesting they were victims of field executions. A few still had IVs attached. These bodies included those of children, women, and elderly Palestinians.

I’m noting that context — and the larger context of Israel’s ongoing, U.S.-financed-and-armed mass slaughter and depopulation of Gaza, themselves part of a project that has been ongoing for some 76 years — because so far as I’ve seen it’s been almost wholly missing from the general culture-war freakout over the campus anti-genocide protests that reached critical mass this week across the United States. Nor is there hardly any mention of the 34,000 Palestinians and counting who have been slaughtered in what at a minimum is an egregious act of collective punishment. Nor the fact that some 15,000 of the dead are children or young teenagers, nor that upwards of 7,000 more Palestinians believed by the United Nations to remain trapped under the rubble. Nor the millions in danger of death from further military reprisals, disease, and forced starvation.

[...]

We are thus being subjected to a full-blown moral panic, in which students who literally conducted Passover seders inside their protest encampments this week are being labeled as antisemites, whose “nascent pogroms” (in the words of Sen. Tom Cotton) call for a 54th-anniversary reenactment of the raid at Kent State. Other politicians are labeling the students “terrorists.” The Butcher of Gaza himself, Benjamin Netanyahu, compared the student movement to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. Not to be outdone, we’ve got Donald Trump bellowing today that they are worse than the 2017 Nazi rally in Charlottesville — the one whose participants he infamously praised at the time. Even President Biden has gotten into the act, condemning “antisemitic protests,” without clarifying which protests he’s talking about.

This is an extension of what you might call the Philosemitism Extended Universe — birthed late last year, when the GOP House caucus, led by the neo-McCarthyite Elise Stefanik, succeeded in making imagined calls for genocide at Harvard and Penn a bigger story than an actual genocide, in Gaza.