#mainly cause they get the biggest overhaul

[the-owl-tree]

Laurel?

Laurel: If you could write the books, what changes would you make?

make the erins write a series bible

major overhauls would include getting rid of the tribe and their connections to the clans, some name changes, and just making some of the shitty things in the books more intentional to the worldbuilding

as more specific arc changes... (i ended up rambling more than i thought i would)

dawn of the clans i think would be the most changed since i already have a mini rewrite in my head for it lol change gray and clear sky's initial group to a cluster of city cats living in a rundown and somewhat abandoned area of town. Give Lion's Roar, Dove's Wing, and Jay's Wing bigger roles because why would you not do that in the first place. Have One-Eye and his gang be the initial threat that brings the group together and then have Clear Sky's desire for borders begin to tear them apart with the big gathering battle being the sixth book instead of the third. Also less fridging because holy shit this arc sucks

the prophecies begin would remain mostly the same howeveeeerrr make redtail firepaw's mentor OR give him more screentime before his death ooorr change him to someone who gets screentime in tpb or bluestar's prophecy, change tigerclaw to be snowfur's son, and change tigerclan to the final boss with bloodclan as the allies

the new prophecy would also stay the same, just have the cats actually bond during the journey and don't kill off feathertail. i'd make hawkleaf a thing instead of crowleaf for the sake of drama, have graystripe be written as a pretty shit deputy to add to brambleclaw's desire, and have brambleclaw not be named deputy after nearly going through with the assassination of his leader. maybe sandstorm or brightheart is named instead as graystripe is forced to resign? literally anyone else

po3 gets some minimal quality of life changes in the first half with the three's (twos?) powers actually have an impact on their quality of life and having negative consequences physically, socially, and mentally. Jaypaw would choose to become a warrior after the horrible experience that was his first battle, Lionblaze would also gain a nasty reputation after his numerous brutal experiences, and Holly would just have more emphasis on her ambitions to become leader. I think the most i'd like is some deputy drama at the end, where Sandstorm/whoever is named deputy wants to step down so Hollyleaf, Lionblaze, and a handful of other candidates try to show off who's best for the job. When Ashfur winds up dead, Lionblaze becomes suspect number one and Holly has to decide whether or not to help her brother or save her own skin.

oots would get a radical overhaul with the battle happening in book three and kicking off a full on war, i see the dark forest troops conquering thunderclan and riverclan and the remaining survivors have to work together. Firestar gets killed in book three and, in the final battle, has his spirit killed as well taking out Tigerstar. It would end on the Clans fully unified.

avos would act as the first physical challenge to unity with darktail coming in and, disillusioned with the amount of infighting, i can see the younger cats joining a group that in appearance looks more unified than the clans. of course this comes crashing down and shit hits the fan. i have not read avos in a bit so uh that's the premise lol

tbc could act as the spiritual challenge to the unified clans where the existence of starclan and the dark forest could be challenged, also make spotfur the thunderclan protagonist instead and have bristlefrost being a double spy be a secret from her and the reader. Scrap everything stupid the books say about Shadowsight, give Rootspring's powers to Needleclaw instead and have her take on his role, and so on.

aannnd there's not enough to go on with asc but uh get rid of nightheart, tear him asunder the thunderclan perspective is unnecessary here anyways

[lesser-mook]

"the beauty of jiro" Riiiight, the beauty of more wasted potential

Underwhelming Mha character #24 of 300-something

She has less going for her than June from Avatar, and yet has more screentime lmfao & biggest highlight beside FAILING to slow down Nine is some redundant festival concert to make a kid smile or some shit

Just more show boating because cause thats all these kids do beside cry & scream ideals. Show off 24/7 with good intentions and thats called heroism

"All i know is, you made my friends cry!" Chp355

Jesus Christ, absolute trash dialogue for this nothing character who's highlight is saying "do your best" which becomes a childish mantra in that joke of a final arc

If it werent for her unique design she'd be as irrelevant as Animal boy Koda

Because if Horikosheesh cared he would realize her Quirk & speakers should make her one of the most dangerous students in the class (the ability to amp soundwaves is dangerous as fuck, its why Echo Echo is one of Ben's more underrated yet deadly aliens AND why Canary to an extent could be an issue for Superman/ if he's nerfed ofc) but that respect never happens for Jiro does it?

I know what she did, I know she's a good kid. I read & watched the story... But what did she REALLY accomplish? Any Ws on the line of Deku taking down Overhaul? Nah

Which is funny because According to Horikosheesh, EVERYONE is the protagonist, no side characters , everyone is a winner but only a chosen few are allowed to get big Ws, and they're mainly boys.

Funny how that works.

But thats why videos like this exist: to inflate importance where there is none in place of the author giving a crap because he clearly didnt beyond the design in the first place, hence her contributions to actual important shit in the story that moves the actual plot

the beauty of mediocrity

[quirklove]

Can I get some HCs for Chrono & Shinso with a skittish GF who has the quirk to cast vivid illusions? The quirk is like Zafrina's in Twilight(to get a quick gist) but strong enough to potentially kill people because how horrifying and trippy they get. She works with an all-girls gang and a complete badass but only when she's pushed to that edge, other than that she's pretty timid and shy. Thank you!! 🖤💓

I hope I did okay!! love these boys <3

HARI

While her shy nature is endearing to a point, Hari has no patience for her being timid when it interferes with whatever he’s currently doing. For example, he won’t tolerate her being jumpy around Overhaul to the point that she refuses to be around him; it might seem cruel, but Hari will drag her along to meetings with the others even if he knows she’s nervous. He is just easily exasperated by any times that her fear stops her from doing things. She isn’t really living when she lets anxiety control her, is she?

That said, the two of them can use their respective Quirks to terrifying effect in tandem. Whenever he’s able to convince her to fight alongside him, he considers it a massive win because they’re incredibly powerful together. (Name)’s illusions keep their opponent(s) in place so that it’s easier for Hari to get a hit in with his clock-hair. The biggest worry is that her illusions might be strong enough to kill the other person. Though he wouldn’t have any issue with that because he’s horribly desensitized to the concept of death, he understands why his girlfriend wants to avoid killing. So, for once, he goes out of his way to make sure that someone doesn’t die ― not because he cares about their rivals, but because he cares about his girlfriend and doesn’t want it weighing on her for the rest of her life.

If she gives her consent for it, he and Overhaul will do experiments similar to what they’ve done with Eri to create an ‘essence’ of (Name)’s Quirk. Hari does his best to avoid causing her excruciating amounts of pain, though that doesn’t always work. Thankfully, her power isn’t what they’re focused on, so these experiments are few and far between. Her Quirk, however, has the potential to be made into a drug that would function as a potent hallucinogen. Considering Overhaul’s endgame with the drug and antidote made from Eri’s Quirk, it’s possible that such a drug would also be useful, so these experiments aren’t nonexistent. As a contrast to his usual bad attitude, Hari is extremely tender with her in the moments after the experiments are over. He knows it’s painful, and with his own medical knowledge he manages to figure out the painkillers that work best for relieving it with her. He holds her in his arms for the rest of the night, stroking her hair, whispering softly how much he loves her, that he’s sorry she has to go through this, that it’s going to be over soon. Whatever else is true, despite the fact that Hari asked her to go through it in the first place, he loves her very much and is trying to get this over with so she doesn’t have to suffer more than necessary.

He is viciously protective of her. It doesn’t matter that he sometimes finds her timidity irritating; the fact is, that’s who she is, and even if she’s trying to become bolder, he isn’t going to stand for anyone trying to hurt or shame her. He wishes she would stand up for herself a bit more, but if she doesn’t, he is going to. Mess with her at your own risk, because if he finds out about it, he will be handing your ass to you in short order.

God, how is she involved with anything gang-related? She’s so… soft. There are times he looks at her and wonders just how the hell she’s accomplished everything she has by being so… so kind. Isn’t that sort of personality fundamentally incompatible with gang activity? How does she have the respect she has, regardless of her Quirk, when she’s so gentle? How do people not walk all over her? The dichotomy between her real self and the aura she exudes when she’s been pushed, when she has to, is also interesting to him. That’s possibly the biggest reason he’s with her ― she stimulates his curiosity in a way that very few things or people can.

HITOSHI

For one thing, her Quirk legit scares the living fucking daylights out of him… and that’s coming from a man who can control people’s minds. Thankfully, Hitoshi usually doesn’t let that spill over into the way he treats her, simply because he knows how much it hurts to have someone terrified of you because of your Quirk. He knows she would never use it on him on purpose, so why treat her like some kind of ticking time bomb? The most he might do is be wide-eyed by the sight of her totally incapacitating someone with her Quirk, and even then it’s more a shock of, “Holy shit she really just did that” than actually scared of her.

The gang thing is… iffy. He doesn’t want to seem like he’s supporting it or anything, but he fully understands how someone can end up in a situation like that, especially if they have a Quirk like (Name)’s. Not only did her power make her a target for anyone who wanted to use it, it’s a scary Quirk, so he’s got a fair guess that she was pushed away from anything heroic despite her sweet, shy personality. Framing it that way, he sees a lot of his own past. If people view you as a villainous person because of your Quirk, it’s difficult to break yourself out of that complex it gives you. At the very least, he trusts and takes comfort in the fact that she’s got a group of people looking out for her when he can’t be around, even if he might occasionally encourage her to, ah ― pursue a different career.

Because Hitoshi’s Quirk is mind- and voice-based, it tends to make him open or vulnerable to Quirks that work within the mind or voice; like if someone were using a, say, voice-stealing Quirk or an illusion Quirk, he would be more susceptible to it than someone with a Quirk that wasn’t based in a mental or vocal capacity. (Name)’s illusions varying in strength combined with physical closeness can sometimes make things… problematic. Particularly when neither of them are conscious. That means that during the night, when they’re both asleep, sometimes her Quirk can accidentally give him bad dreams. It’s almost exclusively during sleep since she has control over it otherwise, and it’s never intentional. This is something Hitoshi knows and can prepare for. He’s definitely not going to have her sleep elsewhere or forego sleep. It’s not something he’s ever upset at her for, and… anyway, it’s not all bad. It means he gets to snuggle up against her for comfort after waking up from a nightmare! Don’t let him fool you. The man is incredibly soft and relishes every opportunity to be close to his girlfriend.

He thinks her shyness is really cute. There’s something about it that triggers a protective instinct in him; it makes him want to take care of her and just shower her with a bunch of affection. He’s got that resting bitch face going on, so it’s not always obvious that he’s feeling happy, but the truth is that he smiles a lot more around her. He loves being able to give her soft kisses and run his hands through her hair and walk through the halls while holding her hand. This is where his so-called ‘villainous’ Quirk comes in handy, because people know that anyone messing with Hitoshi Shinso’s girlfriend would be in for something extremely humiliating if he finds out. He doesn’t care if she’s too timid to speak up for herself. That’s what he’s here for. Nobody’s gonna get away with treating her like a doormat if he has anything to say about it… and he always does.

It always surprises him whenever she takes any kind of initiative with regards to romance. Though he’s not used to doing that in general (mainly since he’s a bit bitter, with walls up more so than the average person), he’s settled into being the bold one where this relationship is concerned. He’s usually the one leaning in for kisses or starting foreplay or suggesting a movie. To whit the previous point, he’s endeared by her shyness, so it doesn’t bother him at all. All things being equal, he blushes much harder than normal if she does something like plant a kiss on his nose or slide her hand up his leg. Someone so timid, overcoming that to express her love for him? Ah. He’s done for.

[arkus-rhapsode]

My Hero Academia Chapter 223 Review

Well, I’m back! Yeah, if you wanna know why I took a break it was because whenever there is a villain centrist chapter it is usually pretty good. But it seems I underestimated Horikoshi and this isn’t a mere chapter. No, this is basically like the pro hero arc and that it will focus on the villains as protagonists for a little while.

So without furthur ado, let us begin.

We open on the current time with Shigaraki fighting against Gigantomechia. And as expected, they aren’t doing so good. We get some narration from Spinner on it.

We also see that just a flex from Gigantomechia’s arm causes a burst of power.

Though that seems to just be a portion of his abilities. As it seems this guy can fight for more than 48 hours before needing rest and recharge. And even in his sleep he’ll be able to attack you. He also grows larger in battle, though no word if it has like reset after awhile. With what the doctor said about Gigantomechia, I’m wondering how much of this is a quirk or just strange physiology.

We see that Shigaraki is the main target and the others can tag in and out.

I kinda love this moment as we learn that the doctor gave them some money and Toga went and bought a new coat with it. I don’t love it because the joke, I love it more in the context of Horikoshi being like “I need an excuse to draw Toga in something cute.” Even though her primary clothing was sweater.

Its not a nitpick, so much as it, just one of those moments that makes you laugh when you think about it. Though, Spinner brings up this important point that Toga had joined for Stain and there is almost nothing about Stain left. Accentuating that point is Spinner not wearing his stain costume (Yet). And remembering the highway chapter, Spinner is the most introspective and one holding Stain to the highest belief.

And here is where we really see the point of this mini arc and that’s basically the parallel of Izuku’s journey. When Shigaraki takes a break from fighting and we see him all battered and bruised,he’s equated to a young boy chasing his dreams. And considering the reckless self destruction Izuku subjected himself to, we see Shigaraki doing the same. While his wounds aren’t self inflicted, he is still throwing himself at something that, in pure power, he is outclassed and will get hurt.

And yet he’s not stopping. Shigaraki’s dream matters more to him than by his physical health.

We get a funny as hell scene with Twice and Compress when Twice gets called by Giran. However, on the other line is the CEO that was torturing Giran. He tells them to check the news.

We see that severed fingers have been placed around Japan in places where the League of Villains have operated. I also would like to take this moment and acknowledge the All Might Statue in Kamino. That’s a really nice touch.

We see the CEO and I’m skipping ahead and we find out his real name is Rikiya Yotsubashi (I’m wondering if he goes by that name or if he uses an alias as Destro’s last name was Yotsubashi and it would be telling if you shared a name with a guy who was the leader of a people’s army.). His villain name is Redestro. Which is kinda lame. Maybe its suppose to be like “Reborn Destro,” but the extra ‘Re-’ just makes it sound a bit goofy. Maybe if it was like Destro the second or something. Wait where was I?

Oh yeah, we see Redestro with the hostage Giran and he explains his view point. Tearing down society and rebuilding it in a way that allows people to utilize the full power of their abilities. This really sounds like he wants to be Armstrong from Metal Gear and make this sense of “true freedom.”

Shigaraki tries to brush them off, seeing it as just another Overhaul. But unlike Overhaul they don’t really have anything like the quirk bullets that will make it worth teaming up with.

But they find out that Giran was tortured, those fingers at the sites of their crimes are Giran’s, and he tried to erase his client data and wouldn’t give up the villains after everything. However, the liberation army was able to restore the data thanks to the help of a member of the liberation army is an IT guy. Speaking of we get our intro to all the heads of the liberation army.

Yeah this is bad. I’ll talk about this later, but these guys are far different from Overhaul. Not just in power and motive, but scale. Also lets look at each member individually (Mainly cause I want to get a bit of snark in).

Tomoyasu is the head of an IT company called Feel Good Inc. Which I really hope is a Gorillaz reference.

Hanabata is a politician, though that would make sense. If they’re trying to regain control of society, best have someone in a position who can affect laws. Also his party is called Heart Seeker, and I really hope that doesn’t allude to the idea that because he’s hot, people voted for him.

Kizuki is the head of the publishing company printing the Destro books. Also, I knew about Shueshia being the company that published Jump beforehand so this parody got me when I first read it. Also, with the fact she’s selling the books and that an arc ago we had Hawks saying he wasn’t happy with the idea of someone profiting from it. So did Hawks ever interview Kizuki? Hori get on the canon version of that and fanfic writers get on the smutty version of that.

And while Redestro is obvious, I will at least take this moment to say, I like his design. While Overhaul had that cool aesthetic with the plague doctor mask, Redestro looks like a middle-aged business man. He’s not drawn as some super hot, Light Yagami looking guy. He look normal and a bit unattractive. Its unique I feel. Usually that kind of character design is the one assisting their Bishounen bosses.

We see that Redestro has satellite cameras on them and that he could sick the heroes on them. But we get a bit more insight into him. The one who must lead the way is Destro and it seems the League after they forced All Might into retirement are the face of evil to the world. As such, Redestro must destroy Shigaraki himself.

While this seems lik one of those cliche “I’ll do it myself moments.” I actually think from the way he speaks, Redestro really does have his dad’s philosophy ingrained in him and he wants to show of the extent to which it grants. Also he probably has like a trap set.

Our chapter ends pretty well actually and I’m hyped.

Post Chapter Follow Up: There is really no negatives in this chapter aside from not much action and maybe one of two pages that feels like filler. But as a whole, its good.

The biggest strength of the chapter is Shigaraki’s journey. Again, as spelled out last week, the whole point of this is that Shigaraki must surpass all for one. Just as Izuku must surpass All Might. As Izuku grows stronger, so to must Shigaraki grow as a villain. He betrayed and outplayed the Yakuza, but he did it with the help of the heroes targeting Chisaki. But now, now he has a beast that won’t recognize him and another beast declaring war on him.

It doees sem like this arc will end with Shigaraki earning Gigantomechia’s respect by beating Redestro. But I’m very curious to see how that goes. As we see, Redestro is a far different villain from Overhaul. Overhaul was calculating and strategic, but he was just as underground as Shigaraki. He had men and disposable equipment, but he was still pretty small. Just a piece in a growing underworld.

But Redestro is actually far larger. Not only does he have more money, but more influence on the public as saw with his choice to go into support tools. He however waits in the shadows a lot more. Which you would have to do as a public figure.

Also we see how much more different than Redestro is in his goal. Like Shigaraki and Overhaul, he wants to change society, but he’s actually far closer to Shigaraki than Overhaul a Overhaul wanted to control societ. He was trying to refit the concept of the Yakuza into the modern age and make a way where he controls both crime and society. Basically making him the “Overlord” or “Godfather.” But Shigaraki and Redestro want to destroy current society. They likely wanna lead it, but they are going to literally change the fundamental structure and replace it with a new one. Shigaraki is just being more open about it.

So yeah, this’ll be Shgaraki’s moment. If I had to predict, if he beats Redestro, it’s likely that he’ll take all of his Liberation army and his support tool manufacturing centers. So this is Shigaraki looking to profit big time off of this.

Also, I love all the small touches in this chapter. From background detail to dialogue, there are the little bits of visual storytelling that I love.

Final Verdict: 9/10

Good buildup

Great characterization

Really makes you think about the complexities of the villains in this world

[loadthree979]

460le Transmission

This 4L60E transmission is ideal for vehicles producing factory horsepower and torque levels. The Bare Bones 4L60E is for unmodified vehicles looking for an affordable transmission that won't break the bank. Bare Bones transmissions retain the stock shift pattern for the ease of driving you look for in an automatic transmission. Assault Racing Products A7599BK GM 700R4 4L60E Black Transmission Pan Stock Capacity Automatic Trans 4L60 4L65E. 4.6 out of 5 stars 56. Only 5 left in stock - order soon. ECOGARD XT1211 Premium Professional Automatic Transmission Filter Kit Fits Buick Rainier 4.2L 2004-2006, Roadmaster 5.7L 1994-1996. The 4L60E transmission is both the physical and spiritual successor to theTH700R4. It was the workhorse of the GM automatic transmissions at the turn of the century. It began replacing the 700R4 (which was then known as the 4L60) in 1997.

The 4L60E transmission came onto the scene back in 1992. It served as a replacement or an upgrade to the 700R4 transmission, which was also known as the 4L60 transmission. Both transmissions were mostly similar. But the major difference came from the upgrade coming from hydraulically to electronically controlled transmissions. The transmission which was developed and produced by General Motors/Hydramatic, became widely available in a large number of GM vans, SUV and truck applications. It was also available in many rear-wheel drive car applications too. Some of the most popular car applications include the Chevrolet Corvette, Camaro, Impala and more.

Sky Go Watch TV on any device. click to open detail panel. Download the app - click to open detail panel. IOS - install the app; Android - install the app; Fire - install the app; Windows - download the app; Mac - download the app; Sky Sports on Sky Go - click to open detail panel. Sky Cinema on Sky Go - click to open. Upgrade to new macbook Pro running MacOS Big Sur 11.1 Everything else works but the Sky Go App will not open. It says it is looking for updates. I have uninstalled it and tried to reinstall. Suggestions please. I have used Sky Go on my Macbook Pro (early 2013 model) several times in the past, even as recently as a month or two ago. There's been no change to my Macbook in terms of system updates etc. And the app now ceases to function. To clarify, on trying to use the Sky Go app on the Macbook, the app opens but then a warning box with 'Something is. The Sky Go desktop app makes it even easier for you to find the programmes you want to watch. And with Sky Mobile, you can watch Sky TV on the go without using your data. Sky Go is included at no extra cost to your Sky TV subscription. Got the Sky Go desktop app already? Sky go app on macbook.

The Good And The Bad

The 4L60E can be classified into both an early version as well as a late version. Given such, the differentiation occurred in 1996. With many variations, the easiest to recognize externally is the removable bell-housing found on the late model 4L60E transmissions. As the arrived in 1996, it was not fully created in until 1998. With this transmission not as widespread as it once was, there are still some applications that GM uses for this 1998 transmission. This transmission can still be found in light-duty van applications and even in the overseas market in the Holden Commodore.

The popularity of this transmission was based on many of the carryover features. The low speed performance capability was one of them. Additionally, the transmission also featured strong fuel economy performance. Then, there was the addition of the electronic control that improved the performance of this transmission tremendously. Given its performance, there were common issues with the transmission; the component’s ability to use the reverse gear was seen as a grave issue. This was generally caused by buildup of debris.

4L60E Performance Specs

The 4L60E transmission is equipped to withstand as well as a handle the max engine torque of 360 lb.-ft. Additionally, the 4L60E’s name states a tremendous amount about the transmission. The number 4 in the title indicates that the transmission is a 4 speed transmission. The L in the title signified that the transmission as an engine that sits longitudinally. The 60 in the name signifies that there is 6000 pounds of GVW.

Why Is The 4l60e A Bad Transmission? Is It The Worst Ever Made?

For many, the 4L60E transmission is a good transmission, but for others, it appears as if it is the worst transmission ever made. One GM owner stated: “My opinion is that the 4L60E is not the worst transmission ever made. Did you buy the truck new or used? If used, then one has no idea exactly what the transmission went through before you bought it.”

Another 4L60E owner added: “The 4L60E is as common as the TH350 except it is newer and bigger. No, its definitely not the most defective transmission on the road. Most all vehicle manufacturers have their “Problem children”. When I was at the Oldsmobile GMC dealer back in the 80’s it seemed that all I ever worked on was the 440T4. They would be lined up out the door and I made a ton of money on them. They were replaced by the 4T60 and 65E’s. Aftermarket has pretty much taken over with the 4L60E’s much like the TH350’s. There are aftermarket parts I prefer to use in my overhauls of these. GM had some design flaws in these which got corrected by GM and the aftermarket. I, personally would rather have a fresh built HD 4L60E any day than some of these newer models coming on the market.” Th400 transbrake kit.

How Can I Tell If My 4l60e Transmission Is Bad?

When it comes to troubleshooting the 4L60E, you have to keep in mind that the automatic transmission (4L60-E) in your rear wheel drive GM vehicle will usually experience failure in one of two ways:

The Transmission Will Begin Slipping

Internal mechanical failure will be the cause of transmission ‘slippage’.

Your transmission fluid will appear at a low level. This is generally due to a fluid leak somewhere which will result in the transmission slipping.

Transmission Fails to Shift Out of Gear

Generally, this problem will arise when the PCM will sense an electrical issue and commands the transmission not to move and stay in “limp mode”.

While the transmission is in “limp mode”, the automatic transmission will fail to downshift or upshift.

How Long Do 4l60e Transmissions Last?

Different 4L60 owners offer their perspective on the longevity of the 4L60e transmission:

Owner Number One:

“It really depends who you ask. Some say it's on borrowed time, and others will say it will be fine as long as it shifts good and all. I'm somewhat in the middle. I'd be a little hesitant, but I also wouldn't be terribly worried of I drove it and it felt good with no slippage or harsh shifts.”

Owner Number Two:

“I have close to 300k on my truck back in the day before I sold it. (The) 4l60e from 1996 held up well. Reverse (kind of) was finicky, every now and then it would slip but had a good life. I honestly think around 250-300k it should be rebuilt if its original.”

Owner Number Three:

“To answer it in short, I took ($2000) put it aside for the (transmission), learned over the fourteen years I’ve owned it, (that it’s a matter of not if, it’s when). (I changed) the fluid regularly and found adding a bottle of Lucas non slip is the best thing. Typically (I) think most that stuff is snake oil but I’m telling you it works, keeps solenoids from sticking too. I do it yearly. Don’t use (overdrive), unless you’re going over 60, you’ll get the same mileage and won’t be wearing the 3-4 out. I drive it easily in 1st till its in 2nd then slowly give it more throttle. Driving it hard that 1-2 shift seems to shorten life How do I know, I’ve been through 5 of these. Just my opinion. (My first transmission) lasted less than 100 miles. (The) last one lasted close to 100k (miles). Seems most of these around 40-50 can go.” Hope you make 300k. (If you do, I would be) shocked. Go easy on them they aren’t all that great, (in my opinion).”

Owner Number Four:

“I would be more interested in the number of shifts before failure. Wear in a transmission in my opinion- mainly occurs during shifts. Once the transmission is in a gear it should see very little wear. Towing and heavy abuse increases fluid temps and reduces lubrication resulting in more wear during shifts. Yes, clutches wear but that is mainly when they slip during application and release. So, to just go off mileage alone is probably not the best way to judge. A 4l60e that has 300k miles from towing between the coasts could be in better shape than one with only 50k miles on it that was stop and go with thousands of shifts per day.”

What Is the Difference Between A 4l60 And A 4l60e Transmission?

The biggest difference between the 4L60 and 4L60E is how both are controlled. For 4L60E control comes from a computer. For the 4L60, control comes form a TV cable. With one being controlled by computer and the other not, there are compatibility issues that the two have.

If you tried to put a 4L60E transmission in the place where a 4L60 once resided, prepare to buy an aftermarket transmission controller so that you can control it.

If you don’t, it will not know when to kick down, when to shift or the speed of the vehicle. The 4L60 transmission would require a custom bracket to hook into the TV cable properly. Additionally, when comparing both transmissions, they don’t also don’t have the same geometry for engaging the torque converter. As a result, you will need torque converters to accomplish engagement.

Similarities Between The 4L60 and 4L60E Transmissions

Sure, the 4L60 and the 4L60E have some differences, but there are some things that they share. Some of the similarities include:

Citrix Receiver unattended installation with PowerShell is a must in automated environments. Also, Citrix Receiver requires some additional configuration to make it run smoothly in your environment. This article explains and automates the most important ones. Note: Citrix Receiver has been replaced. You can install Citrix Workspace app for Windows using the installation media, a network share, Windows Explorer, or a command line by manually running the CitrixWorkspaceApp.exe installer package. Launch the CitrixWorkspaceApp.exe file and click Start. Read and accept the End User License Agreement and proceed with the installation. If you are attempting the installation on a domain-joined ma. The following two command line switches are required to uninstall Citrix Workspace app: /silent /uninstall. The /noreboot parameter is not needed during a silent installation according to the Citrix documentation. Installation dependencies: No; Other dependencies: No; Reboot required: Yes (for certain components such as Single Sign-on, /includeSSON). C:/ ReceiverCleanupUtility.exe /silent. ReceiverLogs folder is created in the location where the utility is run and tracks all uninstall actions and results. NOTE: In order to improve the Citrix Receiver experience, anonymous uninstall data will be sent to Citrix. Citrix workspace app command line.

Both transmissions have the bellhousing bolt pattern.

Both transmissions also use the same bolt pattern as well as the same transmission pan.

They have the same length.

Both the 4L60E and 4L60 have the same number of gear ratios as well as the same number of gears.

Common 4l60e Transmission Problems

Below is a partial list of some of the most common 4L60E transmission problems: Imessage on chromebook.

Slipping, Slow or No Reverse Available

Many owners find that the “lo-reverse” clutches are beat up or worn out. There is also a fluid leak located in the reverse apply circuit. Additionally, there is a broken sunshell.

The 1-2 shift is harsh and delayed

Not only do 4L60E transmission owners experience a delay or harshness in 1-2 shift, but there have also been reports of an inability to shift into overdrive.

4l60e Transmission Troubleshooting

The 3-4 Clutches Are Not Working and Quickly Worn Out

Daniel craig clue movie poster. The 3-4 clutches are reportedly quick to wear out. So, as a result, they will need to be rebuilt after being removed. You can drive the car safely in 2 till you can get to a mechanic.

4l60e Compatibility Year Chart

Sell Your Car with the 4L60E Transmission Problems!

4l60e Transmission Controller

Tired of getting that car fixed and trying to remedy those 4L60E transmission issues? Sell that problematic car to Cash Cars Buyer! We buy all makes and models of General Motors cars- including those with 4L60E transmission issues! You can obtain your FREE online quote hereand call us to get a guaranteed offer on your GM car! Our GM car buying services are FREE and you never have to pay to have your GM car towed away!

[jaivendra]

We all know Apple is an American company and enjoys making an outsized chunk of their revenue domestically. But Apple sells its products in many international markets and even has retail stores in 24 foreign countries. Some of those markets, like Japan, have access to Apple products at a price like the US. For example, an iPhone XS costs 112,800 yen in Japan, which is about 1,058 USD. And when you consider the country’s 8% sales tax is included in that price, it actually makes the iPhone XS about $20 cheaper than in the US. Although this fluctuates depending on the conversion rate. But not every country is lucky enough to pay comparable prices for Apple products. To buy the bottom model iPhone XS, you’d need to pay $1,235 in Mexico, $1,285 in India, $1,454 in Sweden, and $1,800 in Brazil. And these high prices have prompted customers to fly to the US just to buy a new iPhone. So why exactly are Apple products so expensive in these countries? Well, that’s exactly what we’re getting to determine today.

So one of the most important reasons why Apple products are so expensive overseas is due to taxes. And the perfect example of this is often the worth Added Tax or VAT, which exists in over 140 countries around the world. But despite its prevalence, it isn’t something that exists in the US. So let me explain how it works. In places just like the European Union, a VAT may be a consumption tax added to the worth of products and services. Products exported abroad aren’t typically subject to the worth Added Tax, but imported goods, like Apple products, are. And counting on the country, prices of those goods can increase up to 25%. And unlike the US, consumption taxes in most countries abroad are included during a product’s retail price. So when you notice the iPhone XS selling for $1,454 in Sweden compared to $1,000 in the US, that isn’t really a fair comparison, since US prices don’t include local sales tax. Now if you’re doing the math, you’ll find that iPhone prices in countries like Sweden still don’t add up. Because if their Value Added Tax is 25% on a $1,000 phone, they should be paying $1,250. But instead, the iPhone XS is priced about $200 higher. And that’s because taxes are simply a part of the complex equation companies like Apple use when calculating retail prices. Another factor to think about are any associated costs with importation. Things like import duties, shipping, insurance costs, and tariffs all contribute to cost inflation when selling products overseas. India is a great example of this. They've enacted something called the Foreign Direct Investment policy which punishes foreign companies who don’t source at least 30% of the components of their products from Indian suppliers. And since Apple doesn’t meet that standard, they’re restricted from opening retail stores within the country additionally to being hit with a 20% tariff. There’s also an 11.4% customs duty on imported products in addition to the Value Added Tax that we discussed earlier. And when you add all that up, it isn’t surprising that customers in India pay a 28% premium for products like the iPhone. Now Apple is taking steps to not only price their products more competitively in India but also to open their first mercantile establishment within the country. I’ll talk about that in more detail near the end of the video. Now you'll imagine import costs only being an element in foreign markets, but they will also affect customers within the US. Recently President Trump planned to implement a 10% tax on Chinese imports by September 1 which would affect tech companies like Apple. Now that deadline was pushed back to December 15th, but Tim Cook would really like to ascertain the tax eliminated altogether.

Also Read:- Who Stopped WannaCry Virus? Full Details

In fact, he met with Trump in the week and apparently made a convincing argument since Trump told reporters, “Tim was lecture me about tariffs and ... he made an honest case ... that Samsung is their favorite competitor and Samsung isn't paying tariffs. I assumed he made a really compelling argument so I'm brooding about it." Now if the choice isn’t reversed and Apple has got to pay the ten tax, they’d need to make a decision: Increase prices within the US by 10%, or keep prices an equivalent and permit their profit margin to require a serious hit. Both of which are dangerous for the corporate. If Apple raises prices it might exacerbate the difficulty of slowing hardware sales, but if they permit their margins to fall 10%, it might severely damage their profit potential.

So counting on how this story plays out, US customers made soon be feeling the consequences of tariffs that foreign countries are handling for years. Something else which will contribute to high prices is legally binding consumer guarantees that exist in places just like the EU. for instance, once you buy an Apple product within the US, you receive a typical one-year limited warranty that covers faulty parts, product defects, or other conditions that the manufacturer is liable for. But the matter is companies are liberal to define their warranty terms as they see fit. That’s why only certain components could also be covered, otherwise, you may need to pay a fee to ship the merchandise back to the manufacturer. And that’s exactly why the EU established a consumer guarantee that gives customers far more protection than a typical warranty. Customers within the EU are entitled to a minimum two-year warranty in addition to the quality manufacturer’s warranty. And this adds quite a little bit of liability for companies like Apple who typically offset the danger by increasing the worth of their products. But when it involves foreign markets, a serious concern is that the volatility of every country’s currency. Just take the united kingdom for instance. When Brexit happened, there was a 19% drop in the worth of their currency compared to the dollar, which caught tons of companies off guard and caused them to quickly adjust their prices to stay pace with the UK’s currency fluctuation Apple understands which foreign markets are most vulnerable to this volatility and preemptively raises their prices. you'll see this clearly with South Africa. Notice how the worth of its currency has fluctuated over the past five years compared to the EU, Australia, and Mexico. which volatility may be a major reason why Apple inflates their product’s prices in South Africa beyond what’s typically seen in other foreign markets. But so as to really understand Apple’s pricing overseas, we've to think about the American market. Because consumer behavior within the US is often quite different than those in other regions, mainly because American society is extremely consumption-based. we have the foremost credit cards issued per capita within the world, with everyone charging a mean of $4,000 annually. Compare this to other countries just like the UK or France, which opt instead for Debit Cards and thus charge but $300 on their credit cards per annum. you'll see companies like Apple capitalizing on America’s “buy now, pay later” mindset by offering monthly payment plans for his or her products. and every one of these amounts to US customers buying a better volume of products more frequently, allowing Apple to charge but other countries which don’t have a comparable level of consumerism. 

Also Read:- Why Israel Is A Tech Capital Of The World?

Now up to the present point, we’ve discussed pretty concrete reasons why Apple prices their products higher in some foreign countries. But there’s one last fibrinogen want to debate that’s less easy to prove with hard facts, which is the brand image. Apple is taken into account as a premium brand in countries like India where the typical smartphone asking price is $200. So when it involves the iPhone XS price of $1,285, it is sensible that only the rich class in India could afford them. And if Apple knows their product will only be accessible to the upper crust, why not charge the maximum amount as you can? It’s an approach taken by many luxury clothing brands, whose customers haven't any problem overspending on items that ultimately function as a standing symbol. And you'll find evidence of this when comparing the iPhone’s price to other flagship smartphones. for instance, the Galaxy S10 retails for $900 within the US and $935 in India. a rise of just $35. The LG V40 retails for $900 within the US and $700 in India. That’s a reduction of $200. And once you compare those prices to the iPhone’s $285 premium in India, it supports the thought that Apple is just extracting the maximum amount of revenue from customers in India as possible, since they know people with money with pay any price for his or her premium phones anyway. it might also add up then that iPhones have only captured about one-hundredth of India’s smartphone market, which may be a shame considering India’s sizable population. But Tim Cook has made it clear that Apple has an aggressive decision to grow their presence within the region and make India one of their biggest sources of revenue. It all started earlier this year when Foxconn began trial runs of iPhone production in India, setting the inspiration for Apple to at least one day manufacture their smartphones within the region and satisfy the 30% local sourcing rule. this is able to allow Apple to avoid India’s 20% tariff additionally to opening their own retail stores within the country for the very first time.

Also Read:- Why Cartoons Never Grow Up?

In fact, Apple has already finalized an inventory of several locations within the country where they could build their store. But they're going a step further by saying they’d overhaul the company's relationship with independent retailers, and improve apps and services aimed more closely at Indians. So while Apple is understood for being a dear brand within the US, their products are typically even costlier abroad. Perhaps they will take measures like those in India to scale back their tax burden and drop prices, but it’s more likely that customers in foreign markets will need to continue biting the bullet and distribute the additional money for his or her favorite products.

[stoweboyd]

Work Futures Daily - AI is Everywhere

But there is no agreement on the impact of AI-driven automation

2018-04-03 Beacon NY — AI is finding it's way into every conceivable niche it seems. Australian conservationists are employing drones to track sharks, and emplying AI to identify Great White and other large and toothy sharks. The goal is to head off dangerous interactions with the giant beasts. Simialr projects are going on in Cape Town and California, too.

Meanwhile, Equinix is predicting customer churn with AI, in the section below.

Has AI intruded into your work or extracurricular activities? Let me know, if so, here.

…

Sign up here for notifications of free posts.. I'll get you to subscribe eventually, I bet.

On Artificial Intelligence For Customer Prediction

Data center company Equinix has created an app to determine the likelihood of customer churn for its clients:

For its prediction model, a team of Equinix data scientists looked at roughly 70 attributes that could contribute to customer churn, such as how many times a customer logs into a customer portal or placed an order over a certain time period, or whether power consumption increased or decreased. Using a deep neural network, the team built a model that predicts the likelihood of customer churn over a 30-, 60- or 90-day period and says whether each customer is a high, medium or low churn risk.

[…]

In its first iteration, it predicted churn with 50% to 60% accuracy when compared to actual churn data. After months of testing and refining, it now is close to 90% accuracy.

The model runs about once every two weeks and provides and spits out the probability that each customer account might churn, along with potential reasons why. That information is fed into the company’s Salesforce.com Inc. system so sales reps can see it while working with Equinix’s roughly 9,800 customers.

“Before, customers would churn because they didn’t hear from reps,” Mr. Wagle said. “That behavior is changing.”

Just as important for a skeptical user community, they had to provide a raitonale for the churn prediction:

The biggest challenge was figuring out how to explain the model’s decision-making process.

[...]

Now, alongside the risk score, a table shows sales reps reasons that might explain the risk, such as a decrease in power consumption or an extended period without using the customer portal.

Notably, Equinix declined to explain how the technical team derived the rationale from the neural network used.

On Predicting the Impact of Automation

There seems to be little convergence on estimates for the impact of AI and Automation on jobs. The MIT Technology Review has collated a table:

Predictions are all over the place, no convergence, not even on the fundamental question of whether more jobs will be created versus destroyed.

Erin Winick of MIT Technology Review states,

In short, although these predictions are made by dozens of global experts in economics and technology, no one seems to be on the same page. There is really only one meaningful conclusion: we have no idea how many jobs will actually be lost to the march of technological progress.

On Unions

Unions are having a real resurgence in the US, as a bottom-up radicalization of teachers, long denied pay wage increases and confronted by attempts to cut benefits, have walked out, often surprising — or turning against — their union 'leaders'.

Dana Goldstein reported on 2 April,

Thousands of teachers in Oklahoma and Kentucky walked off the job Monday morning, shutting down school districts as they protested cuts in pay, benefits and school funding in a movement that has spread rapidly since igniting in West Virginia this year.

In Oklahoma City, protesting teachers ringed the Capitol, chanting, “No funding, no future!” Katrina Ruff, a local teacher, carried a sign that read, “Thanks to West Virginia.”

“They gave us the guts to stand up for ourselves,” she said.

The walkouts and rallies in Republican-dominated states, mainly organized by ordinary teachers on Facebook, have caught lawmakers and sometimes the teachers’ own labor unions flat-footed. And they are occurring in states and districts with important midterm races in November, suggesting that thousands of teachers, with their pent-up rage over years of pay freezes and budget cuts, are set to become a powerful political force this fall.

The next red state to join the protest movement could be Arizona, where there is an open Senate seat and where thousands of teachers gathered in Phoenix last week to demand a 20 percent pay raise and more funding for schools.

The growing fervor suggests that labor activism has taken on a new, grass-roots form.

[...]

Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, called the movement an “education spring.”

“This is the civics lesson of our time,” she said. “The politicians on both sides of the aisle are rubbing the sleep out of their eyes.”

Note that this is taking place in states where the teachers' unions are barred by law from compelling workers to pay dues, weakening them financially.

…

Meanwhile, in France, Emmanuel Macron's efforts to strip benefits from railway workers has led to the long-anticipated protests:

A strike at railway operator SNCF began Monday evening and will run through Thursday morning, with only one in every eight long-distance trains running and one-in-five shorter regional trips due to depart on Tuesday. Roughly half of RER commuter trains to Paris are running. Eurostar, which runs service between London and Paris, canceled five trains today in each direction, or about one-third of the trains it would run on a normal Tuesday.

Unions say half of SNCF workers are striking, including 77 percent of train drivers. SNCF advised passengers to postpone trips, and television stations showed footage of near empty train stations.

[...]

The strikes are the latest in a series of disruptions that started last month and also involve energy and garbage collection companies, as well as students protesting changes at state-backed universities. Demonstrations across the country have already caused severe disruption in commuter trains and school shutdowns.

Labor unions plan their biggest protest against changes at SNCF, the indebted national railroad, where Macron plans to deny future hires the job security, early retirement and special pensions of existing workers, while opening up train lines to competition. There are 36 days of strikes planned at the train operator over the coming months.

Taking on the railway company’s 74,000 workers will be tough for Macron, after he pushed through a liberalization of France’s labor code and cut taxes on capital in his first year in office. Next, he’s planning to overhaul jobless benefits, simplify France’s retirement systems and streamline parliamentary procedures.

France is deeply divided: 46% say the strike is justified, 53% say it isn't. With the work stoppages likely to be two days out of every five, those numbers could shift: but which way?

Sign up here for notifications of free posts.. I'll get you to subscribe eventually, I bet.

Question or comment? (Can be private, or public: your choice. I occasionally publish public comments or questions.)

Follow me on Twitter.

More media, politics, and social commentary on stoweboyd.com, including bio.

[necropxlis]

4, ,7, 8, 14, 17, 19, 21 sorry not sorry this is a lot

And for 21 I want you to do the music shuffle thing I did for my number 21!

Ya know what I’m not even gonna complain 🤣 only cause it comes from you 🤍

4. Are you likely to blush when a sex scene comes up or can you read/watch it with a straight face?

LOLOL NO. Okay lemme put it this way: depending on the fic I can more than likely read it with a straight face. Unless I get super into it and I’m just like OOP OOOOOPPP NOPE. Like that one time I was at work reading an actual book and the girl and guy were getting into it and I was like IDWDJQLDBQLS and constantly looking around to see if anyone saw me blushing. But watching a sex scene? AHAHAHAHAHA NO. I could be alone or with other people I get FLUSTERED and will look away or look at my phone one. I can barely even handle HEAVY make out in movies and shows because I just get FLUSTERED so badly. Considering there’s no intimacy in my life that’s probably a main factor and cause of how I was raised. My mama would always cover my eyes so I’m always like uhhh where’s my cover???

7. Name a character you wouldn’t mind naming someone after.

I’m actually dying at this because the first name that popped into my head was Sephiroth 😂😂 but I would not name my kid that. However if we are talking about naming children after characters: I wouldn’t mind naming my son Levi, Alistair, Eren, or even Rin. For a daughter: I would probably name them after Eowyn or Arwen because I love those names so much and they come from strong characters. This is funny because I actually have a list of names I want to name my kids and majority of them are from movies, games, books, and anime.

8. Do you prefer happy, bittersweet, or sad endings?

It depends actually. I’m not the biggest fan of a lot of happy endings, if it’s written or plays out well then I’m okay with it. Most of the time I like bittersweet or sad endings, mainly because I’m always into the sad stuff and I don’t know why. I know when I’m reading a book if it ends with like a fairy tail happily ever after I’m like meh about it. The only time I was okay with that was the ending for the Tigers Curse series, and the only reason I was okay with it was because of Kishan’s letter at the end. I went on a whole tangent but ya it really just depends on the story to be honest, but I do see myself leaning towards the bittersweet more than the others.

14. Name a fandom, ship, or character that you love that others would send you hate mail for liking.

This is really hard because I have to sit here and actually go through my list of characters I actually like.

Boromir: I’ve had this conversation with a lot of people. They really don’t see Boromir as victim and just as a power hungry, daddy pleasing, idiot who wanted the ring. Like he has more to his character than that plus he made up for it in the end.

Connor Kenway: 🤣 people hate on Connor so much but I love him. I love his character even tho the amount of times I heard “Where is Charles Lee” is enough for one lifetime. He’s interesting and his story is a little on the sad side.

Ravus Nox Fluret: I’ve stayed away from a lot of stuff FFXV because of the lack of love for Ravus. I don’t think I would get literal hate mail, but I see people arguing about this.

Adam (Nier Automata): I love Adam because he’s so intelligent but the things he did to 9S was inexcusable. I tend to overlook it because it was good character development and made me feel things for him and for 9S that I needed.

Overhaul: I guess this can be one because I really stayed away from everything Overhaul for a long time. So I’m mainly putting him here because my friends hate him and I don’t.

ACTUALLY I KNOW A REALLY GOOD ONE.

Soowoon (Yona of the Dawn): HAHA I have no reason for this one other than 🤷🏻‍♀️ hes cool I like him.

As far as ships? I don’t really think I have any ships that people would come at me for?? And fandoms?? I mean I’ve had some people come at me cause I like Dragon Age before. I used to be in the Voltron fandom so I think that’s about the biggest issue I got 😂

17. Are there any tropes you wished were used less often?

Umm honestly I’m not sure if I can pinpoint one trope cause I know I see flaws in a lot of them. I know the whole “weak but gains crazy power” thing is getting a little old. I don’t mean that in a bad way if it’s written well, but a lot of it just feels repetitive. I also am not a fan of overly loud main characters or overly loud characters in general. Don’t get me wrong I still love them but like I wouldn’t be complaining if they were never there to begin with. That’s just my opinion. I’m sure I have more tropes I could throw out there but my brain is fried from all this thinking ☠️

19. If you could be a part of any story, which story would you want to tag along in?

OH SO MANY!!

If I wanted pure adventure for sure Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. If you don’t think I wouldn’t try and save Thorin’s life you’re wrong 😤 Other ones I would be interested in is the Modern Day story for Assassins Creed. Again, gonna try my best to save Desmond. Final Fantasy 7 & 15. Okay now here’s the struggle. I honestly feel like I wouldn’t stop Sephiroth..but I feel like I would be beside him. BUT DANG IT IF I WOULDNT TRY MY BEST TO SAVE ZACK!! Same thing with 15, I would do my best to make sure Iggy didn’t loose his eyesight, Ravus didn’t die, and save Luna and Noctis. 😤 I also would wanna be in Seraph of the End to see what my demon weapon would be and so I can be friends with Shinya 😂 and Haikyuu so I could replay volleyball.

What I was trying to get at was basically I just wanna save some people who didn’t need to die...and have fun 🤣

21. Bonus+Create your own question.

But you told me to do “Choose a song at random, what ship does it remind you of?”

I cheated a bit and I’m doing two songs cause I can’t decide between the two.

Fingertips by OneRepublic for Luna and Noctis

And August is Over for 9S and 2B

[arkus-rhapsode]

My Hero Academia Chapter 180 Review

Sooooo... People are probably wondering why I’m writing a review of this again. Well its mainly cause that switching to OP reviews really wasn’t a good idea given how over saturated the fandom is and a lot of people beat to the punch on that. I also really wanted to talk about this arc and probably will start doing more reviews for the series later on.

We open on Gentle literally on fire thanks to La Brava’s quirk. kay I’m goning to talk about a few issues I have with the quirk but I’ll talk about those later.

Anyway Gentle is pushing Deku back and starts questioning why he wants to become a hero.

We get a good comparison by the two showing how the two have similar motivations and goals. And while Deku clearly had more people supporting him than Gentle, it still holds true.

Wow Eri really got to Deku? Not complaining, but I mean if you’re keeping up with the anime you know about Kouta and hell going back more Todoroki, they suffered too. Sure nowhere near as much as Eri, but clearly she isn’t the only one in pain. Though unlike the other cases, Deku hasn’t really liberated Eri from her hang ups so I guess it evens out.

Okay, I know La Brava was built up as spending a lot of time on the computer and likely savvy with software, but I kinda think after two infiltration that not only would physical security be beefed up, but also computer systems atleast advanced to the point a grad schooler couldn’t break through it.

I do like this from Gentle showing how when he’s facing a real hero like Deku and something that he wants to be like, Gentle is cutting all the bullshit and is expressing all of his true desires.

We cut to La Brava who is getting close to U.A., but runs into proheroes patrolling the outskirts of the school. Jeez, it’s almost like a densely populated public event would need top notch security.

Back at the fight.

Deku knocks out Gentle while saying he was the toughest opponent he fought so far. I’m pretty what Deku means is that Gentle was tough as in how similar they are and how close to the line Deku and him straddle and that its hard to beat down someone you yourself is sympathizing with. At least that is what I’m hoping Deku means, after Overhaul, its going to be a little tough to top that.

Okay, so this is where I’ll bring up my issue with the quirk “Love”, mainly its how it can get stronger in dire situations. Look, I thought the way it was first described was fine. That the more you love someone the more this support would increase their strength and the biggest draw back is of course you have to have a level of affection for the person. I mean if I were stuck on a team with people I don’t like then it probably wouldn’t be so effective. Now also the concept of once per day seems like it needed to be included as well for balancing out a bit more, but my problem is how it gets stronger as dire the situation is. I understand affections raising in tense situation, but La Brava was fawn over the guy when she was watching a video of him. I think Gentle would’ve already been maxed out. Also I might just be because I read Fairy Tail, but flames emotion is really chessy.

But back to the story.

SO we get two really good pages that show off the humanity of La Brava, but also continue the theme of MHA being that villains are people searching for a place to belong. La Brava’s over affectionate behavior was only reciprocatied by Gentle, and in turn La Brava still supported Gentle in his endeavors. It didn’t matter what they were doing so long as they were able to be together. Now granted La Brava’s issue wasn’t as sever as people who were outcasted like Magne who is transgender and didn’t go through any reassignment surgery, Twice who’s mentally unstable, and Overhaul who is a relic of time past, but it is still worth noting that minor things like ridicule and taunting can push a person out of society. Such as the case with La Brava.

Gentle Hears La Brava’s plea and gets Deku off him.

The two are going to leave probably best given they are in no posstion to keep fighting and both don’t want their exploits to come to end.

The chapter ends with Gentle acknowledging Deku and stating that he is surrendering. Though one little critique, Horikoshi used “the conclusion” for last weeks chapter, make up your mind.

Post Chapter Follow Up; This chapter is very good and very nice in a short amount of time. The character of Gentle was one that a lot thought was going to be the next Stain, but Stain was a character where you understand him, you clearly see what he’s doing is wrong. Gentle is someone who is wrong and his motives can be seen as selfish, but in the end there are more similarities to him and the protagonist than Deku and Stain.

Another thing I like in this chapter that I forgot to mention is that Deku vs Gentle is the first time in a while we’ve gotten a solo Deku fight. With the new application of Deku’s power he defiantly is showing that with a fifth of All Might’s power he is defiantly come a long way. I do wish that Gentle wasn’t shown beating 4 pro heroes maybe two because with that and La Brava’s power boost there seem to be some power scaling issues.

Also this chapter continues the plot of MHA’s over arching theme which I’m glad to always see.

If any problems I had it mainly has to do with the power or at least how they were portrayed, but given that this arc is short and this fight is shaping up to be short I guess its no the worse but I kinda miss the construction site set piece.

The ending is also really good, with it very ambiguous on how they are going to react, sure Gentle was going to do something, but he didn’t, but he also is known on the internet for doing wrong things, so it’ll be interesting how they tackle it.

Final Verdict: 8/10

Good Characterization

Love all the motivations on display

Very intrigued for next week

[ericfruits]

Michel Temer is trying to fix Brazil’s pension systems

POLITICS is no novelty at Brazil’s carnival celebrations, but some themes are more danceable than others. Beija-Flor, one of Rio de Janeiro’s most famous samba schools, won this year’s carnival competition with a lament about corruption and crime and a celebration of tolerance. Pension reform seems less carnivalesque. That did not discourage some blocos, or street parades, from taking up the cause at this month’s festivities. One, in Brasília, the capital, marched to the up-tempo “Don’t go touching our pensions”. Retirees in São Paulo performed the catchy samba, “Those who have worked their entire lives deserve more respect”.

That lyric will be ringing in the ears of legislators when they return from their carnival break. On February 19th they will begin debating a proposal by the government to reform pensions. It is congress’s most important task. Without change, the publicly financed pension systems for private- and public-sector workers will overload the government with debt, sap spending on other priorities, such as reducing poverty, and crimp economic growth.

Get our daily newsletter

Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.

Yet prospects are dim. Reform requires a constitutional amendment, which must be passed by three-fifths majorities in both houses of congress. With a general election due in October, many legislators are scared to back a measure that provokes samba scorn. The lower house is expected to vote by the end of February. The government is at least 40 votes short of the 308 needed.

That congress is even contemplating pension reform is testimony to the virtues of Brazil’s centrist, pro-business president, Michel Temer. If it fails it will be in part because of his weaknesses.

Mr Temer took office after his left-wing predecessor, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached in 2016. The economy was in the midst of its longest and deepest recession on record. Mr Temer started well. Unlike Ms Rousseff, he knows how to marshal a congressional majority. In December 2016 he secured a constitutional amendment to freeze public spending in real terms for 20 years. Last July he signed the biggest overhaul of the Mussolini-inspired labour laws in more than 70 years.

These confidence-building measures helped spark an economic recovery. The IMF expects the economy to grow by 1.9% in 2018. An abundant harvest helped bring down inflation to 2.95% in 2017. That is the lowest rate for any year since 1998. This month the central bank reduced its benchmark interest rate to 6.75%, an all-time low.

Lately, though, Mr Temer has concentrated more on his political survival than on the economy. Last May O Globo, a newspaper, published an excerpt of an audio tape in which he seems to endorse payment of hush money to a politician convicted of taking bribes. That dragged him into the vast Lava Jato (Car Wash) corruption investigation that has ended the careers of many of the most prominent politicians and led to the conviction of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a former president.

Mr Temer persuaded the lower house of congress not to refer the case to the supreme court for trial. He has little pork or patronage left to offer congressmen to support his legislative programme. They have no incentive to back a president with an approval rating of 6%.

His unpopularity does not make it any less necessary to fix the pension systems. Under the current ones, the average retirement age is 54. That compares with 65 in the OECD, a group of mainly rich countries. A Brazilian man who retires at 55 gets a pension that pays on average 70% of his pre-retirement earnings; in the OECD, a worker can expect a little more than half.

Goodies for oldies

Pension spending consumes a third of federal spending before interest payments. It accounts for 9.1% of GDP. With the number of Brazilians older than 65 expected to rise from 17m to 58m by 2060, pension spending is set to rise to a fifth of GDP.

In December 2016 Mr Temer’s government sent its first reform proposal to congress. It would have established a minimum retirement age of 65 for men and women. Widows and widowers would have inherited half their spouses’ pensions rather than the full amount, as now. Even this ambitious-sounding plan would not have solved the problem. It would have saved 800bn reais ($240bn) over ten years, but debt would have continued to rise from its alarming level of 74% of GDP.

When O Globo’s scoop came out, the government cancelled a vote on the proposal. It returned with a more modest one last November that would have let women retire at 62. That, too, failed to get support in the lower house. Mr Temer has now tweaked the reform again. Rural workers and spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty will continue to benefit from the current rules. The new proposal would save just 400bn reais over ten years.

The president is touting the diluted reform on television variety shows as if it were an economic elixir. The government has launched a campaign with the slogan, “Everyone for pension reform. Don’t let Brazil go bust”. Voters are unimpressed. According to a poll commissioned by the president’s office, 14% back the reform.

As it becomes feebler and takes longer, the cost to the economy will rise. In January S&P downgraded Brazil’s credit rating, citing the government’s slow progress in reducing expenditure. Other rating agencies may follow if the watered-down reform does not pass. And that will not be enough. Without more reforms next year, “Brazil could fall back into crisis,” wrote Tony Volpon of UBS, a bank, in a note.

Some analysts hope that congress will do nothing now, leaving the problem to Mr Temer’s successor. Inadequate reform would give Brazilians a false sense that they have fixed the problem, says Monica de Bolle of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. With no reform, the next president will face a severe squeeze on discretionary spending, giving him or her little choice but to overhaul the system quickly. “It’s better to have the crunch,” says Ms de Bolle.

But no one knows who will govern Brazil starting next January. Lula is ahead in polls, despite the corruption conviction that may bar him from running. He is a fierce critic of pension reform. His nearest competitor is Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing demagogue, whose views on pensions are vague. Mr Temer, who understands how destructive the current pension system is, has wasted a golden opportunity to fix it.

This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline "Parading towards disaster"

http://ift.tt/2o9j80K

[ladystylestores]

Trump and the virus-era China ban that isn’t

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s “ban” on travel from China is his go-to point when defending his response to the coronavirus pandemic. The problem with his core argument starts with the fact that he did not ban travel from China. He imposed porous restrictions.

Over the past week, Trump cited his China action repeatedly and as part of a scattered indictment of Democratic presidential rival Joe Biden.

Trump thoroughly misrepresented Biden’s position on immigration and more, while an economic adviser with no public health credentials tried to discredit Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease expert, with a scientific argument.

It was a difficult week for discerning the reality of things.

In review:

THE ‘BAN’

TRUMP: “We would’ve had thousands of people additionally die if we let people come in from heavily infected China. But we stopped it. We did a travel ban in January. … By closing up, we saved millions, potentially millions of lives.” — Rose Garden remarks Tuesday.

TRUMP: He didn’t ban travel from China. He restricted it. Dozens of countries took similar steps to control travel from hot spots before or around the same time the U.S. did.

The U.S. restrictions that took effect Feb. 2 continued to allow travel to the U.S. from China’s Hong Kong and Macao territories over the past five months. The Associated Press reported that more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals based in those territories entered the U.S. in the first three months after the travel restrictions were imposed.

Additionally, more than 27,000 Americans returned from mainland China in the first month after the restrictions took effect. U.S. officials lost track of more than 1,600 of them who were supposed to be monitored for virus exposure.

Few doubt that the heavy death toll from COVID-19 would be even heavier if world travel had not been constricted globally. But Trump has no scientific basis to claim that his action alone saved “millions” or even “hundreds of thousands” of lives, as he has put it.

Story continues

___

THE ‘DANCE’

TRUMP, on what happened after he restricted travel from China: “Nancy Pelosi was dancing on the streets of Chinatown in San Francisco a month later, and even later than that, and others, too.” — Rose Garden.

THE FACTS: No she wasn’t. This is Trump’s frequent and fanciful account of the House speaker’s visit to San Francisco’s Chinatown on Feb. 24. That day, she visited shops and strolled the streets to counter the hostility some people in the district were encountering over a virus that emanated from China.

On that day, Pelosi said the public should be vigilant about the virus but the city took precautions and “we should come to Chinatown.” Local TV news tracked her visit;. She wasn’t seen dancing and did not call for a “street fair,” as Trump at times has put it. Community spread of the coronavirus had not yet been reported.

As FactCheck.org pointed out, the same day Pelosi went to Chinatown, Trump tweeted: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health (Organization) have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” The CDC is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Two days later, Trump asserted that only 15 people in the U.S. were infected and that number would go down “close to zero.” Instead the numbers exploded. More than 3.6 million Americans have had COVID-19.

Trump has accused Pelosi of being “responsible for many deaths” because of the Chinatown visit. He has denied responsibility for any of the deaths sweeping the country as he has persistently minimized the threat, pushed for reopening and refused to take mask-wearing seriously.

___

BIDEN ON THE ‘BAN’

TRUMP: “He opposed my very strict travel ban on Chinese nationals to stop the spread of the China virus. He was totally against it. ‘Xenophobic,’ he called me. ‘Xenophobic.’ A month later, he admitted I was right.” — Rose Garden.

THE FACTS: No, Biden did not come out against the travel restrictions on China. He said little about them at the time. In April, his campaign said he supported travel restrictions if “guided by medical experts.”

Biden did say Trump has a record of xenophobia, a comment made during an Iowa campaign event when the restrictions were announced. Biden said Trump was “fear-mongering” against foreigners and the Democrat took issue with Trump’s references to the “China virus” as an example. He did not address the travel steps.

Trump has claimed that Biden realized he was right after all about restricting travel from China and wrote him a “letter of apology.” This didn’t happen, either.

___

THE TRADE ADVISER

PETER NAVARRO, White House trade adviser: “When Fauci was telling the White House Coronavirus Task Force that there was only anecdotal evidence in support of hydroxychloroquine to fight the virus, I confronted him with scientific studies providing evidence of safety and efficacy. A recent Detroit hospital study showed a 50% reduction in the mortality rate when the medicine is used in early treatment.” — op-ed published Wednesday in USA Today.

THE FACTS: Navarro cherry-picks a study widely criticized as flawed and ignores multiple studies finding hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help.

Numerous rigorous tests of hydroxychloroquine, including a large one from Britain and one led by the National Institutes of Health, concluded that the anti-malaria drug was ineffective for treating hospitalized coronavirus patients. Fauci leads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH.

The Food and Drug Administration also has warned the drug should only be used for the coronavirus in hospitals and research settings because of the risk of serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues.

The Henry Ford Health System study that Navarro refers to was an observational look back at how various patients fared. It was not a rigorous test where similar patients are randomly assigned to get the drug or not and where each group is compared later on how they did.

In the study, some people with heart or certain other conditions were not given the drugs, which can cause heart rhythm problems, so those patients were fundamentally different from the group they were compared with. Researchers said they adjusted statistically for some differences, but the many variables make it tough to reach firm conclusions.

Some patients also received other treatments such as steroids and the antiviral drug remdesivir, further clouding any ability to tell whether hydroxychloroquine helped.

Trump repeatedly has pushed the drug and claimed he took it himself to try to prevent COVID-19 infection or illness.

The White House said Navarro was not authorized to challenge Fauci with the op-ed and should not have done it. But his points largely reflect ones Trump and others in the White House have made themselves.

___

NAVARRO: “Fauci says a falling mortality rate doesn’t matter when it is the single most important statistic to help guide the pace of our economic reopening. The lower the mortality rate, the faster and more we can open.” — USA Today op-ed.

THE FACTS: He’s taking Fauci’s words out of context. Fauci said in early July that it was a “false narrative to take comfort in a lower rate of death.” At the time, deaths were dipping as infections spiked in many parts of the country. But deaths lag sickness, a risk cited by Fauci and other experts. Deaths have since increased, driven by fatalities in states in the South and West, according to data analyzed by The Associated Press.

“It’s consistently picking up,” said William Hanage, a Harvard University infectious diseases researcher. “And it’s picking up at the time you’d expect it to.”

___

More from the Rose Garden on Tuesday:

TARIFFS

TRUMP: “We’re placing massive tariffs and have placed very large tariffs on China — first time that’s ever happened to China. Billions of dollars have been paid to the United States.”

THE FACTS: A familiar assertion, false to the core.

It’s false to say the U.S. never collected tariffs on Chinese goods before he took action. Tariffs on Chinese goods are simply higher in some cases than they were before. It’s also wrong to suggest that the tariffs are being paid by China. Tariff money coming into the government’s coffers is mainly from U.S. businesses and consumers, not from China. Tariffs are primarily if not entirely a tax paid domestically.

___

CHINA

TRUMP, on the economy: “Prior to the plague pouring in from China, they were having the worst year, you know, in 67 years.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. China is far from the impoverished disaster of over a half century ago, when it was reeling from the massive famine caused by Mao Zedong’s radical economic policies and heading into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

China’s economy has been slowing from Trump’s taxes on Chinese imports, as well as its own campaign to constrain runaway debt. But it’s still markedly faster than U.S. growth.

Since overhauling its economy in the late 1970s, China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, established a growing middle class and surpassed Japan to become the world’s second-biggest economy.

___

HUNTER BIDEN

TRUMP, on Joe Biden: “His son walked out with $1.5 billion of money to invest, where he’ll make hundreds of thousands of dollars — maybe millions of dollars a year. Walked out with $1.5 billion.”

THE FACTS: There’s no evidence Hunter Biden pocketed $1.5 billion from China.

In 2014, an investment fund started by Hunter Biden and other investors joined with foreign and Chinese private equity firms in an effort to raise $1.5 billion to invest outside China. It was not a lone effort by Hunter Biden to get his hands on that much money.

In any event, the effort fell far short, his lawyer, George Mesires, wrote in an internet post last year. Mesires said the fund, an investment management company known as BHR, raised only about $4.2 million, not the $1.5 billion it aimed for. Hunter Biden’s 10% share was worth about $420,000, but he did not cash it in, Mesires said. And he said Hunter Biden was an unpaid director at the time.

“He has not received any return on his investment,” Mesires said. Biden stepped down from the board in October as part of a pledge not to work on behalf of any foreign-owned companies should his father win the presidency.

___

WELFARE

TRUMP: “Sign new immigrants up for welfare immediately. This is Joe Biden. So they walk off, and they come in, and they put a foot into our land, and we sign up new immigrants up for welfare. We sign them up immediately. They get welfare benefits. United States citizens don’t get what they’re looking to give illegal immigrants.”

THE FACT: Biden has proposed no such thing. Nor has the task force on immigration that Biden advisers created with advisers from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ former presidential campaign.

Biden has proposed something far more limited. He would reverse a Trump administration rule that allows immigration officials to consider whether someone seeking a U.S. visa or green card is likely to use Medicaid or certain other public benefits. If so, that person’s bid to live legally in the U.S. could be disadvantaged.

The committee of advisers makes a similar recommendation in hopes of influencing the Democratic platform. But neither Biden nor the panel has endorsed extending blanket public assistance immediately to immigrants regardless of their legal status.

___

THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER WALL

TRUMP: “What they’re going to do is they’re going to rip down the wall. They’re taking it down. They want to take down the wall, which we fought hard for.”

THE FACTS: Also false.

Biden’s immigration plan does not include money for new border fencing, and he and the task force aren’t calling for any new walls. But neither has proposed taking down existing barriers.

___

DETENTION

TRUMP, on Biden’s agenda: “Abolish immigration detention. No more detention. You come in here illegally, no more detention.”

THE FACTS: Such a plan also does not exist.

Instead, Biden has promised to adhere to federal court precedent capping how long immigrants can be held in detention, which the Trump administration has challenged. He also supports “community-based” alternatives to detention and would close private, for-profit detention centers.

As for the task force of advisers, it proposes using federal money to help states find alternatives to detention for immigrant children specifically and says detention centers should be a last resort for all immigrants. Biden is not bound by what these advisers want him to do, and in any event, they are not proposing to eliminate incarceration but to reduce it.

___

ENFORCEMENT

TRUMP: “Think of that: Abolish immigration enforcement. They’re going to abolish immigration enforcement.”

THE FACT: No, they’re not.

Biden has been notably outspoken in arguing that crossing the U.S. border illegally is a crime and should remain punished as such in federal court. In fact, he and the task force have not endorsed immigration plans supported by Sanders and other former presidential candidates that sought to decriminalize illegal border crossings and make doing so only a civil offense.

___

DEPORTATION

TRUMP: “Stop all deportation. So if we get a MS-13 gang member, which we’ve taken out of our country by the thousands — brought them back to Honduras, Guatemala — can’t do that anymore — El Salvador. Can’t do that anymore. Stop all deportations. So in other words, we’ll take all of these people — many of whom are in prison for rape, murder, lots of other things.”

THE FACTS: Biden hasn’t proposed ceasing deportations. He’s not committed to a policy on it either way. The committee of advisers has proposed a 100-day moratorium on deportations, not a ban.

___

EDUCATION

TRUMP on Biden’s agenda: “Federal student aid and free community college for illegal aliens. What do you think about that?”

THE FACTS: Only for the people already in the country who came illegally as children — the so-called Dreamers. Neither Biden nor the task force is proposing such aid for everyone who is in the country illegally or who comes illegally in the future.

___

ASYLUM

TRUMP: “Expand asylum for all new illegal aliens. How about that one? All new illegal aliens, expand asylum.”

THE FACTS: No. Biden and the task force are not proposing asylum for all who seek it.

They have advocated rolling back Trump administration restrictions that greatly reduced the number of immigrants who are now eligible for U.S. asylum. That would probably expand the number of immigrants eligible for asylum closer to levels before Trump took office. That’s far from a universal granting of asylum.

___

AP Chief Medical Writer Marilynn Marchione in Milwaukee and Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Ben Fox contributed to this report.

___

EDITOR’S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures.

___

Find AP Fact Checks at https://ift.tt/3bZ0akS

Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2OCt1BE

[abigailswager]

Hate mail and vitriol: Divisions run deep over bill that could reshape our natural resources economy

New Post has been published on https://tradegold.today/hate-mail-and-vitriol-divisions-run-deep-over-bill-that-could-reshape-our-natural-resources-economy/

Hate mail and vitriol: Divisions run deep over bill that could reshape our natural resources economy

TORONTO/CALGARY – It’s a Friday afternoon in January and Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, is tired of responding to angry emails from people he doesn’t know.

For the second time in as many months, his inbox and phone line were flooded with messages — some polite, some he calls “hate mail” — from people opposed to Bill C-69, the planned overhaul of the federal environmental review process.

Few pieces of legislation stir up raw emotion within the resources sector as much as those connected to environmental reviews, which require companies to study the impacts of their projects, sometimes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes opening them up to legal challenges that can create years-long delays.

Hostility in the oilpatch: Unsolicited takeovers the new normal in undervalued sector

Gwyn Morgan: Welcome to another year of stomping on Canada’s most important industry

Alberta ramps up pressure on Ottawa to offer more than ‘bland assurances’ on resource bill

If passed, Bill C-69 would change who can intervene in hearings about building energy pipelines, mines or even power lines. It also would change who must be consulted and what impacts must be studied before construction can begin. The bill carries the potential to reshape Canada’s natural resources economy.

Such legislation typically pleases special interest groups such as environmentalists, but industry usually takes a dimmer view. Yet for much of the past year, the country’s resources sector has been at odds on what to make of the bill, often splitting along geographic and sector lines.

The country’s largest mining companies, with an Ottawa-based spokesman in Gratton, have mainly viewed the bill with cautious optimism and sought to push it forward, while the oil and gas sector, based out west, has been the most vocally opposed and consistent in demanding changes, often describing it as an industry killer.

Somehow, in the warfare, Gratton emerged as a human target for fringe groups that have waded into the fray with vitriolic fervour.

“It’s a bit insulting and it gets under the skin,” he said. “The point is, if my members had a different view, I would be saying something different.”

But even as the mining association advocates for the bill, Gratton acknowledges fault lines within the organization and larger divisions within the resources sector, especially between the oil and gas and mining sectors. After months spent working at cross purposes, the two sides now appear to be moving closer to a consensus: they’ll accept the bill if it is passed with various amendments.

Pierre Gratton.

Peter J. Thompson/National Post files

“This has been hard,” Gratton said. “Probably the hardest public policy file I’ve ever worked on. I’ve never before seen sectors at odds and trying to resolve differences like this. It has been tough.”

As shown by the protests that dogged the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in British Columbia and the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam in Labrador, the resource industries have much to gain or lose from the way Bill C-69 is ultimately crafted.

But the industry battle lines over the bill were drawn in September 2018 when Gratton published an op-ed expressing his association’s support for the legislation.

“Most of our traditional mining members have looked at this bill and said this should be better,” he told the Financial Post. “It’s not perfect, but we’re not going to wait for nirvana.”

I’ve never before seen sectors at odds and trying to resolve differences like this. It has been tough

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada

A month later, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association chief executive Chris Bloomer — along with the heads of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Association of Canadian Port Authorities and others — published a contradictory op-ed that said major resource investments “will become few and far between” if the bill passes.

Later that fall, as both groups advocated for their different positions, controversy surrounding the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion erupted and brought national attention to the environmental review process.

The project, commonly known as TMX, proposes to twin an existing pipeline that carries crude and refined oil from Alberta to the West Coast, allowing producers to ship product to new markets and, hopefully, escape the current trap in which the vast majority of Canadian oil is sold into the U.S. at a steep discount.

Originally approved in 2016, TMX successfully withstood 17 consecutive court challenges from plaintiffs such as the City of Vancouver and several indigenous communities that questioned its environmental and other impacts.

A sign warning of an underground petroleum pipeline is seen on a fence at Kinder Morgan’s facility in Burnaby, B.C.

Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press

But in the 18th court challenge, a decision on which was rendered in August 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal put a halt to all construction work and overturned the project’s approval. The court found the federal government — which in May purchased the pipeline after Kinder Morgan Canada grew tired of wading through endless delays and wanted out — failed to consider how building a pipeline to the coast would cause an increase in tanker traffic affecting marine wildlife.

Tim McMillan, chief executive of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the decision showed “not even the government or the regulator understands” the regulatory process.

Although that outcome occurred under the current law, Marla Orenstein, director of the natural resources centre at the Canada West Foundation, said she fears Bill C-69 would only make it easier to bring forth lawsuits to stop a project.

Gratton called the court’s decision a turning point, after which some of his members started to question whether the new bill would prevent such situations. “It all came to the fore after TMX,” he said.

“TMX is seen as evidence that you can’t build major infrastructure in Canada. You can — you can build mines — but your large oilsands projects, your large infrastructure projects, they have a tougher time.”

Following the decision, he added, several oilsands miners, which had previously supported Gratton’s efforts to help pass bill C-69, wanted new amendments to the bill, and new divisions within his membership started to appear.

TMX is seen as evidence that you can’t build major infrastructure in Canada. You can — you can build mines — but your large oilsands projects … have a tougher time

Pierre Gratton

One of the proposed law’s biggest changes is to replace the National Energy Board with the Impact Assessment Agency, which would operate under different timelines, consider a wider range of impacts — including gender issues — potentially created by a project and allow for a wider range of people to intervene in the hearings.

The new approval process for some types of mining, such as oilsands and uranium, would require more consultations and potentially longer reviews with a greater chance of public hearings.

“It’s much simpler to go out and consult with a half-dozen or less communities near a mine site … than it is to consult with hundreds of communities near a pipeline or a power line,” Gratton said.

The difference is part of the reason why Bloomer and other energy executives have been working to build a broader coalition, one that includes even provincial governments, to push for amendments to the bill.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association chief executive Chris Bloomer in 2013.

Stuart Gradon/Calgary Herald

In December, Bloomer met with members of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government to try to persuade them that the bill would carry serious repercussions for the province if it sought to build new ports, airports or major mining projects.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy, Northern Development and Mines Minister Greg Rickford said the province is concerned the bill “will grind natural resource development in our country to a halt.”

The federal government has said no projects currently being proposed would need to restart the assessment process, but mothballed pipeline projects, such as TransCanada Corp.’s $12-billion Energy East pipeline to New Brunswick, would need to go through the new assessment if they were to be revived.

By December, Gratton said his members changed their position slightly and decided they also needed new amendments to support the bill.

For example, the mining association wants a statement in the bill’s preamble that notes the importance of investing in the resources sector. Such a statement could help courts interpret the motivations behind the legislation, including the need for the resources industry to remain competitive.

Another desired amendment would help define the major impacts of a project at the outset of an environmental review, so that the scope of what companies must study is laid out more clearly.

These amendments look similar, though not identical, to the ones the energy industry wants to secure, which is a sign the two sides, initially on opposite ends of the debate, have converged.

For example, CEPA, which argued in March 2018 that Bill C-69 would “never see another pipeline built,” is now pushing for a series of amendments before the bill’s ultimate passage.

“Our position is not throwing the bill in the garbage can, but it requires material amendments to make it work,” Bloomer said.

Any amendments will be complicated. Bill C-69 already runs hundreds of pages long and, as an omnibus bill, it touches on privacy, labour and other issues entirely disconnected from large resource projects.

Our position is not throwing the bill in the garbage can, but it requires material amendments to make it work

Chris Bloomer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Nor is the bill only focused on the environmental impacts of any given project. The new law would force companies to study the impact of their projects on various communities’ health, economy and, among other criteria, gender.

The impact of sending large groups of primarily male workers into remote communities for weeks at a time has troubled activists who say the prevalence of prostitution and sexual assault cases rise in such circumstances.

Bill C-69 has passed through three readings in the House of Commons, where it was subject to a raucous debate. The Conservatives accused the Liberals of trying to cripple the resources industry and drive away foreign investment, while the Green Party said it fails to provide enough protections for the environment and those opposed to large projects.

One concern raised by Bloomer is that the bill allows more citizens to directly participate and present arguments during the environmental assessment’s hearing process, which he believes could potentially create unnecessary delays. Under the previous process, people had to show they were directly affected by a project in order to participate in hearings.

Now, before the bill’s third reading in the Senate, another debate is set to begin, as Conservative senators want to hold hearings with a range of affected groups. Tempers are still running high.

Rick Peterson, a former candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, founded Suits and Boots, an advocacy group that aims to kill the bill. Earlier this year, the group published Gratton’s contact information online and encouraged people to try to get him to debate Peterson on a radio show about the bill. Predictably, some took the opportunity to vent.

Kevin O’Leary, Rick Peterson and Maxime Bernier laugh during a Conservative Party leadership debate at the Manning Centre conference, on Friday, Feb. 24, 2017 in Ottawa.

Justin Tang/The Canadian Press files

Bloomer said Suits and Boots’ use of social media to inundate Gratton amounted to mob tactics; Gratton said it made him detest Twitter.

But Peterson said he didn’t regret it.

“Passions run high on this issue,” he said. “His contact information is public domain.”

Gratton said he received a flood of hate mail as a result, but responded to many of them to explain the mining association’s position: The environmental review process isn’t going away and the old process was imperfect, so it makes sense to try to improve it by participating in a debate about the new law.

He said he suspects the debate has inflamed people’s frustration with the slow pace of construction on large projects around the country.

“I think this bill has become a proxy for a lot of other issues.”

o Email: gfriedman@postmedia.com | Twitter: GabeFriedz

o Email: gmorgan@nationalpost.com | Twitter: geoffreymorgan

Comments

Join the conversation ->

Telus has yet to select its 5G vendor, but only other option is a choice between two global suppliers, Nokia and Ericcson

With massive book and software sales, a popular YouTube channel and public speaking tours, the polarizing psychologist is quite the entrepreneur

Nature of deals unclear as winners must retain control of their cannabis stores under the rules

‘It’s very, very important that the White House get on board of doing away with these tariffs, says head of U.S. finance committee

Read More

[mikemortgage]

Hate mail and vitriol: Divisions run deep over bill that could reshape our natural resources economy

TORONTO/CALGARY – It’s a Friday afternoon in January and Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, is tired of responding to angry emails from people he doesn’t know.

For the second time in as many months, his inbox and phone line were flooded with messages — some polite, some he calls “hate mail” — from people opposed to Bill C-69, the planned overhaul of the federal environmental review process.

Few pieces of legislation stir up raw emotion within the resources sector as much as those connected to environmental reviews, which require companies to study the impacts of their projects, sometimes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes opening them up to legal challenges that can create years-long delays.

Hostility in the oilpatch: Unsolicited takeovers the new normal in undervalued sector

Gwyn Morgan: Welcome to another year of stomping on Canada’s most important industry

Alberta ramps up pressure on Ottawa to offer more than ‘bland assurances’ on resource bill

If passed, Bill C-69 would change who can intervene in hearings about building energy pipelines, mines or even power lines. It also would change who must be consulted and what impacts must be studied before construction can begin. The bill carries the potential to reshape Canada’s natural resources economy.

Such legislation typically pleases special interest groups such as environmentalists, but industry usually takes a dimmer view. Yet for much of the past year, the country’s resources sector has been at odds on what to make of the bill, often splitting along geographic and sector lines.

The country’s largest mining companies, with an Ottawa-based spokesman in Gratton, have mainly viewed the bill with cautious optimism and sought to push it forward, while the oil and gas sector, based out west, has been the most vocally opposed and consistent in demanding changes, often describing it as an industry killer.

Somehow, in the warfare, Gratton emerged as a human target for fringe groups that have waded into the fray with vitriolic fervour.

“It’s a bit insulting and it gets under the skin,” he said. “The point is, if my members had a different view, I would be saying something different.”

But even as the mining association advocates for the bill, Gratton acknowledges fault lines within the organization and larger divisions within the resources sector, especially between the oil and gas and mining sectors. After months spent working at cross purposes, the two sides now appear to be moving closer to a consensus: they’ll accept the bill if it is passed with various amendments.

Pierre Gratton.

“This has been hard,” Gratton said. “Probably the hardest public policy file I’ve ever worked on. I’ve never before seen sectors at odds and trying to resolve differences like this. It has been tough.”

As shown by the protests that dogged the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in British Columbia and the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam in Labrador, the resource industries have much to gain or lose from the way Bill C-69 is ultimately crafted.

But the industry battle lines over the bill were drawn in September 2018 when Gratton published an op-ed expressing his association’s support for the legislation.

“Most of our traditional mining members have looked at this bill and said this should be better,” he told the Financial Post. “It’s not perfect, but we’re not going to wait for nirvana.”

A month later, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association chief executive Chris Bloomer — along with the heads of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, Association of Canadian Port Authorities and others — published a contradictory op-ed that said major resource investments “will become few and far between” if the bill passes.

Later that fall, as both groups advocated for their different positions, controversy surrounding the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion erupted and brought national attention to the environmental review process.

The project, commonly known as TMX, proposes to twin an existing pipeline that carries crude and refined oil from Alberta to the West Coast, allowing producers to ship product to new markets and, hopefully, escape the current trap in which the vast majority of Canadian oil is sold into the U.S. at a steep discount.

Originally approved in 2016, TMX successfully withstood 17 consecutive court challenges from plaintiffs such as the City of Vancouver and several indigenous communities that questioned its environmental and other impacts.

A sign warning of an underground petroleum pipeline is seen on a fence at Kinder Morgan’s facility in Burnaby, B.C.

But in the 18th court challenge, a decision on which was rendered in August 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal put a halt to all construction work and overturned the project’s approval. The court found the federal government — which in May purchased the pipeline after Kinder Morgan Canada grew tired of wading through endless delays and wanted out — failed to consider how building a pipeline to the coast would cause an increase in tanker traffic affecting marine wildlife.

Tim McMillan, chief executive of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the decision showed “not even the government or the regulator understands” the regulatory process.

Although that outcome occurred under the current law, Marla Orenstein, director of the natural resources centre at the Canada West Foundation, said she fears Bill C-69 would only make it easier to bring forth lawsuits to stop a project.

Gratton called the court’s decision a turning point, after which some of his members started to question whether the new bill would prevent such situations. “It all came to the fore after TMX,” he said.

“TMX is seen as evidence that you can’t build major infrastructure in Canada. You can — you can build mines — but your large oilsands projects, your large infrastructure projects, they have a tougher time.”

Following the decision, he added, several oilsands miners, which had previously supported Gratton’s efforts to help pass bill C-69, wanted new amendments to the bill, and new divisions within his membership started to appear.

One of the proposed law’s biggest changes is to replace the National Energy Board with the Impact Assessment Agency, which would operate under different timelines, consider a wider range of impacts — including gender issues — potentially created by a project and allow for a wider range of people to intervene in the hearings.

The new approval process for some types of mining, such as oilsands and uranium, would require more consultations and potentially longer reviews with a greater chance of public hearings.

“It’s much simpler to go out and consult with a half-dozen or less communities near a mine site … than it is to consult with hundreds of communities near a pipeline or a power line,” Gratton said.

The difference is part of the reason why Bloomer and other energy executives have been working to build a broader coalition, one that includes even provincial governments, to push for amendments to the bill.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association chief executive Chris Bloomer in 2013.

In December, Bloomer met with members of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government to try to persuade them that the bill would carry serious repercussions for the province if it sought to build new ports, airports or major mining projects.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy, Northern Development and Mines Minister Greg Rickford said the province is concerned the bill “will grind natural resource development in our country to a halt.”

The federal government has said no projects currently being proposed would need to restart the assessment process, but mothballed pipeline projects, such as TransCanada Corp.’s $12-billion Energy East pipeline to New Brunswick, would need to go through the new assessment if they were to be revived.

By December, Gratton said his members changed their position slightly and decided they also needed new amendments to support the bill.

For example, the mining association wants a statement in the bill’s preamble that notes the importance of investing in the resources sector. Such a statement could help courts interpret the motivations behind the legislation, including the need for the resources industry to remain competitive.

Another desired amendment would help define the major impacts of a project at the outset of an environmental review, so that the scope of what companies must study is laid out more clearly.

These amendments look similar, though not identical, to the ones the energy industry wants to secure, which is a sign the two sides, initially on opposite ends of the debate, have converged.

For example, CEPA, which argued in March 2018 that Bill C-69 would “never see another pipeline built,” is now pushing for a series of amendments before the bill’s ultimate passage.

“Our position is not throwing the bill in the garbage can, but it requires material amendments to make it work,” Bloomer said.

Any amendments will be complicated. Bill C-69 already runs hundreds of pages long and, as an omnibus bill, it touches on privacy, labour and other issues entirely disconnected from large resource projects.

Nor is the bill only focused on the environmental impacts of any given project. The new law would force companies to study the impact of their projects on various communities’ health, economy and, among other criteria, gender.

The impact of sending large groups of primarily male workers into remote communities for weeks at a time has troubled activists who say the prevalence of prostitution and sexual assault cases rise in such circumstances.

Bill C-69 has passed through three readings in the House of Commons, where it was subject to a raucous debate. The Conservatives accused the Liberals of trying to cripple the resources industry and drive away foreign investment, while the Green Party said it fails to provide enough protections for the environment and those opposed to large projects.

One concern raised by Bloomer is that the bill allows more citizens to directly participate and present arguments during the environmental assessment’s hearing process, which he believes could potentially create unnecessary delays. Under the previous process, people had to show they were directly affected by a project in order to participate in hearings.

Now, before the bill’s third reading in the Senate, another debate is set to begin, as Conservative senators want to hold hearings with a range of affected groups. Tempers are still running high.

Rick Peterson, a former candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, founded Suits and Boots, an advocacy group that aims to kill the bill. Earlier this year, the group published Gratton’s contact information online and encouraged people opposed to the bill to contact him.

Kevin O’Leary, Rick Peterson and Maxime Bernier laugh during a Conservative Party leadership debate at the Manning Centre conference, on Friday, Feb. 24, 2017 in Ottawa.

Bloomer said Suits and Boots’ use of social media to inundate Gratton amounted to mob tactics; Gratton said it made him detest Twitter.

But Peterson said he didn’t regret it.

“Passions run high on this issue,” he said. “His contact information is public domain.”

Gratton said he received a flood of hate mail as a result, but responded to many of them to explain the mining association’s position: The environmental review process isn’t going away and the old process was imperfect, so it makes sense to try to improve it by participating in a debate about the new law.

He said he suspects the debate has inflamed people’s frustration with the slow pace of construction on large projects around the country.

“I think this bill has become a proxy for a lot of other issues.”

• Email: gfriedman@postmedia.com | Twitter: GabeFriedz

• Email: gmorgan@nationalpost.com | Twitter: geoffreymorgan

from Financial Post http://bit.ly/2Ealnd6 via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[movietvtechgeeks]

Latest story from https://movietvtechgeeks.com/wins-loses-donald-trumps-christmas-gift-aka-republican-tax-plan/

Who wins and loses with Donald Trump's Christmas gift aka Republican tax plan

Senator Mitch McConnell has been stating over the past 24 hours that the Senate has the votes to pass the Republicans' sweeping tax overhaul, but as more Senators like Sen. Susan Collins signs on, it is looking more than likely. This will give Donald Trump a much-needed victory after former National Security advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty today about lying to the FBI and will now be working with Bob Mueller on the Russia investigation. At this point, Americans will be tested on their support for Trump if the plan does pass with the expected results. With several important changes still expected Friday evening, here's a rundown of the winners and losers so far:

Winners

President Trump. He promised a "big, beautiful" tax cut by Christmas. It's the centerpiece of his "MAGA-nomics" agenda, and he looks likely to get it (at least by early 2018) as both the House and Senate have passed the major hurdles of passing bills. In fact, it might even end up being a tax cut AND a repeal of the individual health care mandate, one of the least popular Affordable Care Act provisions. Most economists also expect the bill will juice economic growth, at least for the next year or two. The economy has been growing around 3 percent for the past two quarters. If it jumps to 4 percent (or more) in coming quarters, Trump can claim an even bigger victory heading into the 2018 mid-term elections and the 2020 presidential election. Big corporations. America's largest companies are about to get the biggest tax cut ever. Both the House and Senate bills slash the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. While few corporations actually pay 35 percent, the average is around 25 percent; most still get a break. Profitable companies like Apple and Microsoft also get the bring back the piles of cash they have sitting in offshore accounts to the United States at a very low tax rate (currently just 10 percent in the Senate bill). There are other goodies in the bill for them as well such as the ability to fully deduct the cost of new investments for the next five years. But perhaps the biggest win of all for big business is a change from a worldwide tax system where businesses have to report income earned all over the world to the IRS to a territorial system where they mainly pay taxes only on what was generated in the United States. People with money in the stock market. The Dow surged above 24,000 for the first time ever this week. The stock market is up about 600 points (2.6 percent) just this week as investors cheer the the tax cuts getting closer to reality. If Trump is able to sign the bill, investors are likely to get a very good deal. Many companies plan to bring cash home from abroad and give a lot of that extra money to investors in the form of higher dividends and stock buybacks (which increase stock prices). Overall, tax cuts mean more larger profits for businesses, which means more money in the pockets of investors. Many in the middle class (at least for awhile). Republicans have sold the tax plan as a boost to middle-class paychecks. According to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 80 percent of Americans earning $50,000 to $75,000 would get a sizable reduction in their taxes by 2019 (the average cut would be about $850, according to the Tax Policy Center). Overall, about 62 percent of Americans would pay at least $100 less in taxes in 2019. But the tax cuts for families don't last forever. The Senate bill has the lower rates for individuals going away after 2025. Republicans argue a future Congress is likely to extend the cuts, but there is no guarantee that will happen. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.). He did it on taxes. The Senate Majority Leader took a huge blow over the summer when the Affordable Care Act repeal failed. Trump appeared to give him the cold shoulder for awhile, but McConnell is the man of the hour now. He managed to rally GOP senators to deliver the biggest priority of all: tax cuts. It turned out to be a surprisingly difficult task with many senators demanding last-minute changes, but McConnell got the 50 votes he needed. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.). The Pennsylvania senator was one of the main authors of the Senate tax bill, and he defended it vigorously on the floor of the U.S. Senate. As Democrat after Democrat slammed the bill, Toomey calmly stood up and sold the bill as a way to make American companies more competitive and profitable so they will invest more in the United States and hire more workers, hopefully raising wages as well. Toomey played an especially large role in crafting the tax changes for small and large businesses, a very complex tax. Rich kids. The GOP tax bills make it a lot easier for wealthy parents to pass property and money to their kids. Under current law, up to $5.5 million can be passed down tax-free. After that, there's a 40 percent tax, known as the "estate tax" (or the "death tax" by critics). The House bill eliminates the estate tax entirely. The Senate bill allows rich parents to pass up to $11 million onto their heirs tax-free. Maybe Dreamers? Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) says he is voting for the tax bill despite his concerns about what it would do to the national debt because GOP leaders promised him they would pass legislation soon to allow "Dreamers" (young people in the country without documentation who have gone to school in the United States and followed the law) to stay.

Losers

Senate Democrats/Filibustering. Democrats panned the bill as a "tax scam" that gives away a ton to the wealthy and corporations, but they were not able to stop the bill. Republicans were able to pass this massive legislation with just 50 votes in the Senate. Normally it would take 60 votes, but Republicans side-stepped any trouble from Democrats by using a clever tactic known as reconciliation where they are allowed to tack one major bill a year onto the budget and pass it with a simple majority vote (the tie is then broken by Vice President Mike Pence -- we know how he will vote). Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) He made a brave last stand Thursday night to try to force Republicans to change the bill so it wouldn't add so much to the deficit. He was upset to learn that even after accounting for economic growth, the bill is still expected to cost $1 trillion. That was too much, Corker said, but in the end, his Republican colleagues passed the bill without him. Corker has already said he's retiring from the Senate after his term expires after the 2018 election. It could be lonely for him in the Senate lunch room for awhile. People who care about the debt. For years, many Republicans have railed against America's growing debt that ballooned under President George W. Bush and then President Barack Obama because of wars, tax cuts and the Great Recession. The total debt is now $20 trillion (about $15 trillion is actually held by the public). The tax bill is likely to add at least $1 trillion more, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeepers in Congress. In other words, all signs indicate the debt will continue to get worse in the coming years. The 13 million Americans who won't have health insurance. The Senate bill isn't just a tax bill; it also includes the repeal of the individual mandate that requires all Americans to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty. This provision is not in the House bill, so it might not make it to the president's desk, but if it does, it's expected to cause a spike in health insurance premiums in the United States and 13 million Americans to drop insurance coverage in the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The poor. The Senate bill cuts tax rates across all income levels, but 44 percent of Americans don't pay any federal income tax, so it doesn't help them. Some senators -- notably Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) -- pushed to give more money back to lower-income families in the form of refundable tax credits. Rubio and Lee wanted to make a lot of the Child Tax Credit refundable. But that didn't happen, meaning the poor won't get much benefit from the bill. If anything, they might lose a lot -- some won't be able to afford health insurance anymore, and some are likely to lose other government benefits as Republicans look for ways to trim the federal budget in the coming months. Puerto Rico. The island that was devastated by Hurricane Maria this fall now might lose some of the few big businesses that remain on the island if the GOP tax bill gets enacted. The reason is that Puerto Rico would no longer look so advantageous as a place to do business compared to the rest of the United States. Puerto Rico's governor is trying to push for the island to be deemed a "free trade zone," but that doesn't look likely. Harvard. The House and Senate bills create a new 1.4 percent tax on private college endowments worth over $250,000 per student. Only a handful of universities have such large endowments. Most are Ivy League schools like Harvard.

Maybe losers (depends on conference committee)

College students. The House bill scraps many popular deductions for college students and college grads with student loans. The House bill eliminates the popular student loan debt write off, and it forces graduate students who receive tuition waivers (sometimes as much as $20,000 or more) to count that money as income for tax purposes, even though they don't actually receive money in their pockets. It would be a big hit, and many universities are saying it could heavily dissuade graduate study. The Senate bill does not make these changes. Elderly with high medical expenses. The House bill gets rid of the deduction for huge medical expenses, which 8.8 million Americans (mostly elderly) currently use. The Senate keeps this deduction in place, setting up a major conflict to be worked out.

Movie TV Tech Geeks News

[anchorarcade]

Trump steps up talks with Democrats on taxes as timetable set

http://ryanguillory.com/trump-steps-up-talks-with-democrats-on-taxes-as-timetable-set/

Trump steps up talks with Democrats on taxes as timetable set

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday stepped up his outreach to Democrats to try to make good on a campaign promise for major tax cuts, while fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives promised an outline of a tax plan in two weeks.

The White House and the Republican-led Congress have not put forth a detailed tax plan despite months of talks. House Speaker Paul Ryan said an outline will be unveiled during the work week beginning Sept. 25, with the House tax-writing committees then crafting legislation in the subsequent weeks.

“It’s the beginning of a very important process to achieve for the first time in a generation overhauling our tax system and giving middle-class families a much deserved break,” Ryan told reporters.

As Trump continues to seek Democratic input on the tax front, he was set to meet on Wednesday afternoon at the White House with House members, including eight Democrats and five Republicans.

Trump also invited Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi to dine with him on Wednesday night, Democratic sources familiar with the matter said.

Trump last week blindsided Republican leaders by striking a deal with Schumer and Pelosi on the U.S. debt limit and federal spending for three months, and also spoke to them about how to resolve the fate of 800,000 young adults brought into the United States illegally as children, the so-called Dreamers.

The White House said Trump’s meeting with seven senators, including three Democrats, on Tuesday night on taxes was “highly productive” and would “spur constructive discussion.”

Trump went to Twitter to urge Congress to “move fast” on what he called “the biggest Tax Cut & Tax Reform package in the history of our country.” He also tweeted that the tax measure “is needed more than ever” after the damage caused by hurricanes Irma and Harvey.

DIFFERING VISIONS

Republicans have been trying for most of the year to come up with a detailed tax plan while ignoring the Democrats. There has been no comprehensive overhaul of the U.S. tax code since 1986, and the starkly different visions embraced by the two parties for how to move forward promise to make the task difficult.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) speaks at a news conference with House Republican leaders after a closed conference meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 13, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Republicans are advocating a deep cut in the corporate tax rate, tax cuts for the middle class and a simplified code. But Democrats, emphasizing the need for relief for the middle class, have criticized the Republican efforts as benefiting mainly the wealthiest Americans.

Ryan said the outline being worked on now would reflect the consensus of the House Ways and Means Committee, Finance Committee and the Trump administration.

“I would love to have the Democrats supporting and working with us in a constructive way on tax reform, but we’re going to do it no matter what,” Ryan said.

Ryan, in an interview with the Associated Press, left the door open on whether the tax proposal would increase the U.S. deficit or follow Republicans’ long-standing principle that the cost of any legislation be offset by government spending cuts.

Ryan and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin last week expressed confidence that Congress will pass the tax legislation this year. Both have cast doubt on the likelihood that the plan would realize Trump’s goal of cutting the corporate tax rate from the current 35 to 15 percent.

In his nearly eight months in office, Trump has failed to get his major legislative goals through Congress. A bid to dismantle the Obamacare healthcare law fell apart and he has not unveiled detailed proposals on taxes and infrastructure spending.

Democrats largely have lined up against Trump’s legislative priorities, but he has shown a newfound willingness to work across party lines.

Democratic aides said Schumer and Pelosi will press Trump on Wednesday evening for action to protect the Dreamers after the president rescinded a five-year-old program to spare them from deportation, and to stabilize health insurance markets under Obamacare.

Democrat Joe Manchin, one of the senators who met with Trump on Tuesday, told CBS News that Trump was “very aggressive” on the need for a bipartisan plan.

“The president comes out right away and says, ‘Listen, this is not a tax cut for the rich. I‘m not going to get a tax cut, nor any of the wealthy, super one-percenters will get any tax cuts,’” said Manchin, saying he is “anxious” to see a template of the plan.

Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Susan Cornwell; Additional reporting by Makini Brice, Richard Cowan, David Morgan and Susan Heavey; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Frances Kerry and Alistair Bell

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link