Summations Only

I'm not sure Sessions is safe. I may be wrong, but I don't think his recusal is legally binding. He decided to recuse himself, he can decide to unrecuse himself.At any rate, reports are Trump is really, really angry at Sessions. Regardless whether Sessions can end his recusal, I can see Trump ordering Sessions to fire Mueller, and then firing Sessions if he refuses.Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo

Sorry to continue the slightly off topic distraction, but where does it indicate this? I had a look at some pictures and can't see it.

Harry Litman is a former deputy assistant attorney general and a constitutional law professor at UC San Diego. David Lieberman is a former Massachusetts assistant attorney general and a lawyer with the Whistleblower Law Collaborative. They have an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times stating that No, the Trump Tower meeting was not 'totally legal'. Some excerpts:

quote:

---

Meeting with a foreign power to get assistance with a presidential campaign is not totally legal; special counsel Robert S. Mueller III almost certainly could indict Donald Trump Jr. today for what is publicly known about the meeting; and the president should be deeply concerned about his own liability.

​

Mueller’s February indictment of the Internet Research Agency, and associated Russian entities and individuals, charged...violations of 18 U.S. Code 371 conspiracy to commit an offense against, or to defraud United States. [This is the same statute under which Trump and company would be charged]

​

Under the defraud clause, as precedent and the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual make clear, the statute criminalizes any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government, even if the object of the conspiracy is not a criminal offense. According to Mueller’s indictment, the conspiracy sought to defraud the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice the agencies charged with preventing foreign nationals from making contributions, donations or expenditures (which can include not just money, but any thing of value) that would influence U.S. elections.
...
The Trump Tower meeting clearly fits established definitions of conspiracy to defraud the United States....

​

On the face of it, Trump Jr. was approached by a foreign government seeking to influence an American election. Trump Jr. welcomed the possibility of influence, and candidate Trump’s actions [announcing at a rally held on the eve of the meeting that he'd soon give a speech about everything the Clintons had done, but there was never any such speech], while circumstantial, indicate that he intended to make use of that information. It is irrelevant, in conspiracy law, that Trump Jr. found the information ultimately worthless, or as Trump said, that it went nowhere.

---

In other words, Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner and probably Trump himself even though not at the meeting give all the appearance of having conspired with a foreign government to influence an American election. They then lied about the meeting over and over again, which is a coverup and constitutes obstruction of justice. While lying to a newspaper is not a crime, Trump's efforts to influence the Mueller investigation constitute obstruction of justice. It's a long way from appearances to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the alleged conspirators appear in a very exposed position right now. It is not a coincidence that Trump is suddenly tweeting manically and maniacally.--Percy

What Hyroglyphx said was, "There are, however, Limited-Term Drivers Licenses issued to non-residents with proof of work/school visas. And, at least in Texas, it states the type of license you hold in big, red block letters." I looked this up, and apparently they're issued to anyone who only has temporary lawful status in the United States. Here's what one looks like: But now that I think about it, that means that permanent residents get regular licenses, so unless Hyroglyphx or Jar can give us more information, it looks like driver's licenses are not a reliable indicator of citizenship even in Texas.--Percy

I can only repeat that I have never been asked to show anything related to being a citizen so far. I will have to renew my license in 2020 or late 2019 and so I can report back then

I looked it up. Under recent legislation you have to prove 'lawful presence' when getting a driver's licence in Texas. For you that would mean passport of birth certificate. For a non-US citizen it would be a green card or visa or other document confirming that they're in the US legally.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Yeah, I saw that so I just ordered a copy of my Birth Certificate. I've never had one before.

I lived in Texas in 2010, and wanted to roll my New York license over to Texas.(Houston)I had my NY drivers license and Social Security card but lost my birth certificate (lost some paperwork somehow). (Had my own zerox that I made but it did no good)I could not get a license roll over the entire time I was there.Could not vote in the 2010 elections (I left before they came up anyway).New York requires the same documentation (though I can't remember it I ever needed it to keep my old license going, but newer New Yorkers need a birth certificate and S.S. card to convert their out of state license or I.D. into a New York one.)And I mean New York, New York (Manhattan).Interestingly, I saw the (down town) Houston congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee tell the C-SPAN audience that her mother couldn't vote because her Birth Certificate can't be gotten EVER because the place that holds the records either burnt down long ago or something just isn't to be found in any government record building.(I lived in downtown Houston too when I was there but I wasn't born there)I lived in the downtown area of Houston too.When you are away from your birth place, it is very hard to get your documents, but it was amazing to see that the mother of the congresswomen couldn't even get her documents in her home town.

What stopped you from getting a copy of your birth certificate? When I needed to apply for a passport the first time, I was in DC and needed my birth certificate from Massachusettes. Obtaining my birth certificate did cost me some money, but I was able to get a certified copy fed-exed to my house in about two days. I had my passport in a week or less.Now I understand that my situation is not the same as that of everyone else. At the time I had plenty of other identification, plenty of money, a phone, a place to live, a way to travel, and I could take off from work when needed as long as I could figure out how to make up the time. I've also worked with homeless folks who lost all of their documents and for whom getting them back was a major effort that took months.I don't know what your circumstances were, but perhaps the circumstances surrounding your inability to vote would shed some light for the more skeptical folks here.

Just a link for any who may wish to read:A Conversation with One of the Few Scientists in Congress - Scientific AmericanMoose

A study published earlier this week in the International Journal of Health Services finds that immigrants use fewer healthcare resources than citizens:

quote:

---

An analysis of 188 peer-reviewed studies dating back to 2000 on the relationship between immigration and U.S. healthcare expenditures found per capita total health spending for immigrants was $1,139 compared to $2,546 among U.S.-born individuals.

​

The results were even more stark among undocumented immigrants, who were found to have lower expenditures compared to both naturalized immigrants and U.S.-born citizens and contributed a greater amount to Medicare's trust fund than they withdrew.
...
As a group, immigrants consume roughly 8.6% of all healthcare expenditures despite making up 12% of the total population.
...
Undocumented residents accounted for 1.4% of total U.S. medical expenditures despite making up 5% of the population.
...
But the study found insured immigrants also accounted for fewer expenditures, accounting for 52% lower costs than insured U.S.-born individuals while uninsured immigrants had 61% lower medical expenditures than uninsured U.S.-born individuals.

---

Trump's claims that immigrants are healthcare moochers is dead wrong. The reality is that US born individuals are benefiting from the presence of immigrants with regard to healthcare because immigrants pay a proportionally larger share.--Percy

If only it were the case that facts mattered, eh?

Immigration - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Research suggests that immigration has positive effects on native workers' health. As immigration rises, native workers are pushed into less demanding jobs, which improves native workers' health outcomes....
A survey of leading economists shows a consensus behind the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off.[70] A survey of the same economists also shows strong support behind the notion that low-skilled immigration makes the average American better off
  —wiki

---

Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

The Trump administration keeps touting the strong economy, but how much does that really help American workers?
If Apple and GM and Walmart all have strongly increasing revenue, does that help American workers? Let's see.Here's a graph of annualized GDP growth by quarter over the past two and half years: That's an average GDP growth rate of 2.85%, which is pretty good. The economy is roaring along. Unemployment is also low, as shown by this graph that goes back about ten years: So all this is great news for workers, right? A strong economy and low unemployment - what more could you want?But rapidly growing economies tend to cause inflation, so wages must also grow in order for workers' pay to keep up, but are they? Well, according to the latest figures wages are up 2.7% over the past year, but the cost of living is up 2.9%. Workers' pay is worth less now than a year ago. (Source: U.S. wage growth is getting wiped out entirely by inflation)Most economists expect that low unemployment would put strong upward pressure on wages, but for some reason it is not. This is not Trump's fault because low unemployment under Obama didn't cause strong wage growth, either. But what *is* new under Trump is that the inflation rate has surpassed the wage growth rate, and this is because his tax cuts added to an already strong economy are causing overheating. The Fed has been slowly increasing interest rates to help tamp down inflation, but when the engines of economic growth wind into overdrive then the Fed's actions are like twigs in a hurricane, to mix my metaphors.Clearly a strong economy is good for workers because it keeps unemployment low. But too strong an economy can be bad for workers because it causes more inflation than wage growth. The economy grew at or above 4% for a fair stretch of the 1990's, so there's nothing wrong with the current 4.1% growth rate, but the unemployment rate during the 1990s probably averaged around 6%. Most economists consider full employment to be around a 5% unemployment rate. Well, we're way below 5% unemployment now at 3.9%.It's amazing how easily influenced leading economists can be by short term effects - Federal Reserve economists are currently saying that full employment is no longer an unemployment rate of 5% as was believed for decades but is now somewhere between 4.1% and 4.7%. I will walk out on what I believe is a very short and sturdy limb and predict that we're heading for high inflation (>6%), low wage growth (<3%), and rising unemployment (caused by economic disruptions caused by the Trump trade wars).--Percy

I have been linking to the IMF wage projections. (but the links become out of date and useless as time passes)This Brexit thread has worthless links. (They were for 2016 and 2020 incomes)EvC Forum: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?The most updated figures will have things a bit higher than $65,000 for 2020(Here are the most up to date IMF projections for 2018 and 2022)List of Countries by Projected GDP per capitaSource International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (April - 2018)
Date 06 May 2018Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.comNOW MY POINT.Anyway, an economy that grows 3.0% instead 2.5% will see average incomes roughly $1,200 higher per person after 4 years.The difference between $71,000 and $72,000 or $66,000 and $67,000.Clearly the difference won't matter too much.So what will matter?I would say one answer is the "economic system" but there are other answers. Social programs are one answer.