Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've never understood being able to claim gambling losses on taxes.So I just read they added an absurd new rule on gambling losses in the BBB. You are only allowed to deduct 90% of your losses against wins. So if you win $9,500 and lose $10,000 in gambling (and technically, you are supposed to report all gambling "sessions" as taxable events -- even if you did not receive a W-2G) then you would be treated as a $500 winner rather than a $500 loser.
That is such an absurd law and it makes absolutely no sense. But this is what happens when you put a 1,000 issues into a bill in the last few days and no one has a chance to read any of them.
Ignoring the fact that Logical Luminary provided no source for his/her numbers, isn't the $50 billion in the bill, which is specifically for rural medical facilities, already doing what he's trying to do?
My understanding is that BBB cuts a bit more than 1 trillion from Medicaid and the 50 billion is under the control CMS which will review applications from rural health facilities to be reviewed, approved, and allocated for 10 billion on a yearly basis over 5 years.Ignoring the fact that Logical Luminary provided no source for his/her numbers, isn't the $50 billion in the bill, which is specifically for rural medical facilities, already doing what he's trying to do?
I will fully admit that there are people in both parties who are corrupt. It’s not equal, at the present, but it does exist.the morally superior blues lmmfao
no one can accept and admit their blue and red partys are full of lies and corruption
You never have been able to claim gambling losses. You claim the net income from gambling...wins vs losses. You've never been able to claim you "lost" money gambling. If your net was a loss, you simply lost. That is significantly different than paying taxes on all individual gambling wins regardless of offsetting losses.I've never understood being able to claim gambling losses on taxes.
Please kindly cite the statutory authority for the "broadcast distortion rule," and its implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Register.The FCC does have some regulatory capacity under the broadcast distortion rule. Layman's terms, networks can't intentionally falsify the news. The rules seem pretty loose.
-It can't cause public harm but it doesn't explicitly state it applies to elections and is really more geared towards panicking people or sending police to the wrong place. That could really be argued by the attorneys.
-It can't infringe on first amendment rights and it can't prosecute differences of opinion which likely wouldn't apply.
-it has to be intentional and it has to be something more than a minor distortion. I would assume that this would be intentional and major but I'm sure it would be argued.
-It also doesn't really address selective editing. Obviously Harris said all those things so does that fall under broadcast distortion? That could be argued in Court too.
Based on my choice of overnight lodging yesterday evening, I suspect if it ever did go to court as an FCC enforcement action, CBS would win but not sure why they would really want to risk their broadcast license. Pay the fine and move on. They should have suffered a whole lot more reputational damage than they did but plenty of other networks are worse.
Yes, that's the point. It was an illegal strongarm by the Trump administration, leveraging the power of the government to directly increase Trump's wealth.They paid 16M bitch.
I'm too busy representing your clients for malpractice.If you’re so smart, volunteer to represent ABC and CBS in these lawsuits. Otherwise, shut up big guy.
Truer words have never been spoken.I've never understood
I think the point is we don't know how much the changes will impact how many rural hospitals/clinics and how many will be approved. People seem to be reacting based on a lot of assumptions.My understanding is that BBB cuts a bit more than 1 trillion from Medicaid and the 50 billion is under the control CMS which will review applications from rural health facilities to be reviewed, approved, and allocated for 10 billion on a yearly basis over 5 years.
Will every rural health facility be approved ?
If every rural health facility ( over 200 ? ) applies and is approved with the 10 billion distributed equally, that would would amount to less than 5 million/year. Seems to me this pittance is being used as a distracting talking point to fool people into thinking the BBB is not going to decimate rural health facilities.
Would it be too cynical to wonder if the CMS approves only red state applications ?
I think the point is that you don't know anything.I think the point is we don't know how much the changes will impact how many rural hospitals/clinics and how many will be approved. People seem to be reacting based on a lot of assumptions.
Nobody does!I think the point is that you don't know anything.
Really? How can they know that? Are you telling me the current hospital in question KNOWS how many patients they will be losing, how much that will cost them and how much they'll get and they KNOW it won't be enough? If that's your claim, explain how they could possibly know all of that HOURS after the bill passed?The people who run those hospitals and clinics have a very good idea how this will affect them. They know that a paltry $10B a year will not make them whole.
Stop changing the subject.And of course you are leaving out the problem of attracting doctors, which became a hell of a lot of harder for several reasons. The Big Ugly Monstrosity more or less declares war on physician training in the US.
Most likely they know staff will leave for bigger hospitals and clinics in larger communities sooner rather than later. Nursing and diagnostic/clinical lab technicians are in high demand. We have positions advertised constantly, and many of the new hires come from smaller facilities.Nobody does!
Really? How can they know that? Are you telling me the current hospital in question KNOWS how much they'll get and they KNOW it won't be enough? If that's your claim, explain how they could possibly know that HOURS after the bill passed?
Stop changing the subject.
The real problem is that MAGA Nation is mostly opposed to switching to electric cars and trucks, just like they've become fiercely opposed to almost any progressive changes in our society, whether it's economic, technical, or social change. If anything, they want to turn the clock back on progress, including stopping or at least slowing down the development and sales of electric vehicles. Any change now scares them and leaves them frightened of the future. So what's likely going to happen is that the rest of the world will continue to move ahead with transitioning to electric vehicles, and we'll be left behind as MAGA Americans keep insisting on driving huge gas-powered SUVs and pickup trucks. And, typically, not only are they insisting on continuing to drive gas-powered vehicles, they want to make it difficult for anyone else in America to drive electric cars too. Because it's not enough just for them to do something, everyone else has to go along as well whether they want to or not. That's how they roll.Loading…
insideevs.com
A Big, Beautiful Disaster For America
President Trump says he wants energy independence, jobs and AI. His anti-electric vehicle plans stand to derail all of that.
The problem is that America isn’t very good at making batteries. This was supposed to change as the IRA promoted domestic EV and battery manufacturing: after all, in order to get the full $7,500 tax credit at purchase, EVs had to be made in North America, as did a minimum percentage of the critical minerals and other components within their batteries.
But if the battery boom goes bust, it could be bad news for Trump’s agenda on multiple fronts. That includes losing tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, sacrificing a shot at greater energy independence, and continuing to depend on China for so much of America’s battery needs.
Changing the fact that the U.S. now ranks a dismal fourth overall in global battery production was supposed to be a huge boon to domestic manufacturing employment. The opposite has happened since Trump returned to office. According to a recent report from the nonpartisan Zero Emission Transportation Association, more than $14 billion in clean energy projects were canceled this year due to “policy uncertainty.” Those include halting construction on a battery plant in South Carolina; the closure of two plants in Michigan; and a scuttled plan for a battery component plant in Georgia.
Incidentally, most of the states where battery plants were once planned, but are now seeing cuts, went for Trump last November. Yet the effects will be seen everywhere.
That happens to a large extent today. It's not everybody but plenty of Indian and Nigerian doctors in rural settings and most are there because they couldn't get a job in an urban or suburban environment. Not to say they're bad but they don't necessarily have the same education and licensing path as most American born doctors.I just hope all those rural MAGAs are ok with all their local doctors, to the extent they exist, being from India and Nigeria.
I'm not changing the subject. If you don't understand that doctor shortages are a huge problem for rural areas and in fact an existential threat to their businesses . . . well, it would be par for the course for you I guess.Stop changing the subject.