Trump administration 2024-2028

[calculus]

Ok just to make you happy as you obviously didn't like the joke.

• 55.4 (2) If, following the laying before Parliament of any actuarial valuation report pursuant to section 56 that relates to the state of the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, there is, in the President of the Treasury Board’s opinion, a non-permitted surplus in that Fund,
  • 
    
  • (b) there may be paid out of the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, and into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the amount, at the time and in the manner, that the Treasury Board determines on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board after consultation with the Minister.

Thinking TB's opinion could be influenced to determine at 11% it is a non-permitted surplus and transfer from the pension. They are already doing it to the public service at supposedly $1.9 billion. Federal pension plan: Anand must restore fairness to federal government workers

and should we all pretend it didn't happen before Public service employees not entitled to $28-billion pension repayment, court rules

The government is on the hook to make up shortfalls, so I have no issue with them reaping the benefits of good management. I'm the employee rep on our DB plan (Crown Corp, so managed pretty much the same as PS and CAF), and I can attest that the calculations used to declare a surplus are extremely conservative, and include huge amounts of contingency. Our plan, for example, recently achieved 103%, but the reality is it's more like 112%, because calculations on rates of return and so called black swan events are ridiculously conservative. The economy of the world would have to collapse completely before those pension funds slipped to a point where they could no longer cover obligations, and, as I said above, the government would still need to cover those obligations. So, I have no issues with the government using surpluses (though I would like to see them applied to deficits, not frivolous sh*t), and don't feel as if I deserve to have access to that money. I know what I signed up for, and as long as I get what I am owed, I'm happy. The idea that surpluses somehow belong to the employees is laughable union nonsense.

 

[Kirkhill]

Newsweek says you can tune in to see what POTUS47 is going to tell the WEF starting at 1100 Eastern/0800 Pacific/noon Atlantic/1230 NL at the WEF's YT channel

https://www.youtube.com/@wef/streams

Cool stuff.

Not just Drill Baby Drill but Burn Baby Burn.

Doubling the annual energy output of the US to supply the AI economy. That means burning anything the US has available. Including coal....

Also calling for driving down the price of oil, ostensibly to shut down the Ukraine war by stifling the Russian economy.

...

There goes the neighbourhood.

...

Energy is not so much a valuable commodity as a feedstock. The cheapest energy wins the manufacturing race.

...

Question for Ontario

11-13.5 cents per kWh

Ontario pays 11-13.5 cents per kWh for wind power. The average price in the U.S. is 7 cents. The average price for Ontario nuclear, water and gas is 7 cents. Ontario is the only province/state that charges HST, delivery, and regulatory fees on electricity.

7 cents per kWh equates to $20 per GJ

As noted elsewhere

Natural Gas and Coal are available in Alberta for $2 per GJ, call it $6-8 per GJ for electricity with 2 to 3 free GJ of heat. And the Carbon is still recoverable for further processing.

 

[CountDC]

The government is on the hook to make up shortfalls, so I have no issue with them reaping the benefits of good management. I'm the employee rep on our DB plan (Crown Corp, so managed pretty much the same as PS and CAF), and I can attest that the calculations used to declare a surplus are extremely conservative, and include huge amounts of contingency. Our plan, for example, recently achieved 103%, but the reality is it's more like 112%, because calculations on rates of return and so called black swan events are ridiculously conservative. The economy of the world would have to collapse completely before those pension funds slipped to a point where they could no longer cover obligations, and, as I said above, the government would still need to cover those obligations. So, I have no issues with the government using surpluses (though I would like to see them applied to deficits, not frivolous sh*t), and don't feel as if I deserve to have access to that money. I know what I signed up for, and as long as I get what I am owed, I'm happy. The idea that surpluses somehow belong to the employees is laughable union nonsense.

The only issue was that after this they said we had to start paying more into it. Can't recall now if there was anything substantial to it but do remember people took it that the money was there, they took it away, the fund is now short so we have to pay more in to sustain it. People certainly were not happy.

Question for Ontario

7 cents per kWh equates to $20 per GJ

As noted elsewhere

Natural Gas and Coal are available in Alberta for $2 per GJ, call it $6-8 per GJ for electricity with 2 to 3 free GJ of heat. And the Carbon is still recoverable for further processing.

Rub it in

 

[The Bread Guy]

Newsweek says you can tune in to see what POTUS47 is going to tell the WEF starting at 1100 Eastern/0800 Pacific/noon Atlantic/1230 NL at the WEF's YT channel

https://www.youtube.com/@wef/streams

For the record, and for any nit-pickers out there, POTUS47's info-machine's text (including Q&A material) ...

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – The White House

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM Via Teleconference 11:06 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Klaus. And hello

www.whitehouse.gov

... and the WEF's AI-generated transcript of just the comments. Both also attached in case links don't work.

 

[lenaitch]

Why would he need an amendment when it already reads what he says? If others have problems with that they can submit an amendment. He didn't sign away anything, he reinforced it. In know, all interpretation. Prior governments interpreted it one way, the current another. Like always people can request amendment to clarify or challenge in court. Personally I think amendment would be best as the court today may not be the same one 10 years down the road.

No, he's putting an interpretation on what it says. Unless there is a precedent ruling that says that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (and there might be, IDK), I don't think it is true what the EO claims. Off the top of my head, the only people "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" are foreign diplomatic personnel and foreign military plus their families. There may be other groups. If a person in the US illegally commits a crime, do you not think they are subject to US law?

In a sense, you may be right that, if his position is ultimately endorsed by SCOTUS, then he doesn't need an amendment.

It seems a federal court judge has already blocked it temporarily, and 22 states have started actions against it. Not that he will care. His base will be happy and the deep state stands in his way.

Judge temporarily blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'

A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

abcnews.go.com

Twenty-two States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order

The lawsuit to block the president’s executive order is the first salvo in what is likely to be a long-running legal fight over immigration policy.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, he's putting an interpretation on what it says. Unless there is a precedent ruling that says that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (and there might be, IDK), I don't think it is true what the EO claims. Off the top of my head, the only people "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" are foreign diplomatic personnel and foreign military plus their families. There may be other groups. If a person in the US illegally commits a crime, do you not think they are subject to US law?

The dispute is going to turn on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". Pretty much everyone understands that they are subject to the laws of countries while they are visiting, but do not expect the right to vote or claim citizenship. If the liberal interpretation has to amount to permitting birth tourism, it will probably not prevail.