Jump to content
TedderVision

James Grant

Members
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by James Grant

  1. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    They've received more in tax cuts than tariff impacts. You're not going to find a statement where they said the closure of North American factories was because of tariffs though. It's not even mentioned in the story on it. That's a reason you're attributing to the situation. They've bought back more in stocks to protect stock prices than they're saving in wages with their downsizing. And you defend their corporate greed.
  2. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    The official social media of RNC Chairman James Grant
  3. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    You're a fragile thing. You tweet more defensively than Donald Trump.
  4. From the Office of RNC Chairman James Grant Our Speaker likes to call others liars yet has only spread misinformation about the Protecting Our Energy, Environment, and Economy Act. The bill would not double tariffs on China it is not a tariff on their total carbon emission only a tariff on that which is exported into the United States. We don't take in 100% of China's carbon emissions as he would like you to believe. He also likes to pretend tariffs increased our trade deficit with China even though they haven't but he will never prove that point. Just like he won't ever prove GM outsourced due to tariffs instead of just being a greedy corporation that has received more in government bailouts over the years than their downsizing will ever save them. He's ideologically driven and when you approach reality with such a bent the reasons for things are always magically aligned with what he believes. To him, it's hypocritical to protect your country's environment from the harmful effects of foreign importation of carbon. You have to continue to let foreign exporters pollute your country at no cost to them unless you're willing to hurt your own economy in the process as he suggests to be somehow consistent. Giving an economic advantage to our domestic economy would be wrong to do. With the problems we have with our own carbon footprint why should we just take on foreign carbon at no cost? That's not reasonable and doesn't put our environment first. Foreign corporations for some odd reason matter more to him just like protecting outsourcing corporations like GM's corporate welfare. He also contends that the rebate that would counteract any rise in prices is somehow us just try to buy off the public instead of helping American families. The rebate which would be around $1100 for a family of four would far outweigh any rise in prices. If these tariffs were equivalent to the current tariffs on China which they are not the impact would only be some $60 in price rises. He only sees the rebate as a buy off and bad policy because he wouldn't be taking credit for it. Just like the Democratic party's insistence on passing along their $4.8 farmer bailout package when the Trump administration has already allocated $13.2 billion for the same purposes. Fiscal responsibility be damned his party needs to look good for elections. That's also why no Republican bill to help farmers has been brought to the floor either. Apparently they aren't good enough. The majority vote on this motion for the Protecting Our Energy, Environment, and Economy Act is going to be for debate but believe me this power hungry ideologically driven Speaker won't care. Obstructionist ideologically driven governing is more important than consensus building to him. He's not concerned about bipartisanship this bill already has more bipartisan support than the "bipartisan" climate change committee he wanted ever got which unsurprisingly failed in the Senate. If he actually cared about getting things done and working with the other party and the President we wouldn't have only 7 of the 20 bills over the last four dockets signed into law. So much time wasted. He doesn't even represent his state Arkansas well. It went 60-33 for Donald Trump but he has shown he's more apt to call the President names and condemning him before actually working with him and accomplishing the things his state voted for in Trump's agenda. They obviously wanted a border wall but when bipartisan compromise was reached on the DACA deal he'd rather shove through a clean amnesty that would never pass than actually get things done for both sides. Such weak ineffective leadership but sadly nobody has the guts in his party to call him out. Maybe they fear the retaliation of just an unhinged powerful person in their party who's quicker to tweet his rage than even Donald Trump. Who knows, but we do know Democratic voters who have waited years for House control expected a lot more results than the Speaker has delivered that is for sure.
  5. James Grant From the Office of RNC Chairman James Grant Our Speaker likes to call others liars yet has only spread misinformation about the Protecting Our Energy, Environment, and Economy Act. The bill would not double tariffs on China it is not a tariff on their total carbon emission only a tariff on that which is exported into the United States. We don't take in 100% of China's carbon emissions as he would like you to believe. He also likes to pretend tariffs increased our trade deficit with China even though they haven't but he will never prove that point. Just like he won't ever prove GM outsourced due to tariffs instead of just being a greedy corporation that has received more in government bailouts over the years than their downsizing will ever save them. He's ideologically driven and when you approach reality with such a bent the reasons for things are always magically aligned with what he believes. To him, it's hypocritical to protect your country's environment from the harmful effects of foreign importation of carbon. You have to continue to let foreign exporters pollute your country at no cost to them unless you're willing to hurt your own economy in the process as he suggests to be somehow consistent. Giving an economic advantage to our domestic economy would be wrong to do. With the problems we have with our own carbon footprint why should we just take on foreign carbon at no cost? That's not reasonable and doesn't put our environment first. Foreign corporations for some odd reason matter more to him just like protecting outsourcing corporations like GM's corporate welfare. He also contends that the rebate that would counteract any rise in prices is somehow us just try to buy off the public instead of helping American families. The rebate which would be around $1100 for a family of four would far outweigh any rise in prices. If these tariffs were equivalent to the current tariffs on China which they are not the impact would only be some $60 in price rises. He only sees the rebate as a buy off and bad policy because he wouldn't be taking credit for it. Just like the Democratic party's insistence on passing along their $4.8 farmer bailout package when the Trump administration has already allocated $13.2 billion for the same purposes. Fiscal responsibility be damned his party needs to look good for elections. That's also why no Republican bill to help farmers has been brought to the floor either. Apparently they aren't good enough. The majority vote on this motion for the Protecting Our Energy, Environment, and Economy Act is going to be for debate but believe me this power hungry ideologically driven Speaker won't care. Obstructionist ideologically driven governing is more important than consensus building to him. He's not concerned about bipartisanship this bill already has more bipartisan support than the "bipartisan" climate change committee he wanted ever got which unsurprisingly failed in the Senate. If he actually cared about getting things done and working with the other party and the President we wouldn't have only 7 of the 20 bills over the last four dockets signed into law. So much time wasted. He doesn't even represent his state Arkansas well. It went 60-33 for Donald Trump but he has shown he's more apt to call the President names and condemning him before actually working with him and accomplishing the things his state voted for in Trump's agenda. They obviously wanted a border wall but when bipartisan compromise was reached on the DACA deal he'd rather shove through a clean amnesty that would never pass than actually get things done for both sides. Such weak ineffective leadership but sadly nobody has the guts in his party to call him out. Maybe they fear the retaliation of just an unhinged powerful person in their party who's quicker to tweet his rage than even Donald Trump. Who knows, but we do know Democratic voters who have waited years for House control expected a lot more results than the Speaker has delivered that is for sure. View full PR
  6. James Grant

    DNC Press Conference

    Mr. Fitzpatrick, If I can get this statement correctly, the bill was both simultaneously finished and as you said on the house floor in need of tabling to work out details to be resubmitted?
  7. James Grant

    DNC Press Conference

    Additionally does the DNC support ending all foreign aid?
  8. James Grant

    Speaker Ward holds press conference on Capitol Hill

    Why was the Tuition Tax Deduction Act brought to the floor despite being in an unfinished state? That doesn't seem like responsible leadership just a waste of time.
  9. James Grant

    DNC Press Conference

    Why was the Tuition Tax Deduction Act brought to the floor despite being in an unfinished state? That doesn't seem like responsible leadership just a waste of time.
  10. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    So we should repeal Obamacare then and stop telling insurance companies how to run their businesses? Or do you only sometimes believe in this?
  11. James Grant

    ALERT Act

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Grant (for himself, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Katko, Mr. Keating, Mr. Hurd, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Ratcliffe, and Ms. McSally) introduced the following bill; A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide counter-radicalization training to Department of Homeland Security representatives at State and local fusion centers, to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish in the Department of Homeland Security a board to coordinate and integrate departmental intelligence, activities, and policy related to counterterrorism, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the testimonials of former violent extremists or their associates in order to counter terrorist recruitment and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Amplifying Local Efforts to Root out Terror Act” or the “ALERT Act”. SEC. 2. COUNTER-RADICALIZATION TRAINING. (a) Authorization Of Training.—The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to provide training for personnel, including Department of Homeland Security personnel and State, local, tribal, and territorial representatives at State and major urban area fusion centers for the purpose of administering community awareness briefings and related activities in furtherance of the Department’s efforts to counter radicalization, identify and report suspicious activities, and increase awareness of and more quickly identify terrorism threats, including the travel or attempted travel of individuals from the United States to support a foreign terrorist organization (designated pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189)) abroad. (b) Coordination.—To the extent practicable, in providing the training under subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate with the heads of other Federal agencies engaged in community outreach related to countering radicalization, and shall also coordinate with such agencies in the administration of related activities, including community awareness briefings. SEC. 3. COUNTER-RADICALIZATION ASSESSMENT. (a) Assessment Required.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with appropriate State, local, tribal, and territorial representatives, shall assess the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security to support efforts to counter radicalization at the State, local, tribal, and territorial levels. Such assessment shall include each of the following: (1) A cataloging of Department efforts to assist State, local, tribal, and territorial governments to counter radicalization. (2) A review of cooperative agreements between the Department and such governments relating to countering radicalization. (3) An evaluation of Department plans and any potential opportunities to better support such governments that are in furtherance of the Department’s countering radicalization objectives and are consistent with all relevant constitutional, legal, and privacy protections. (b) Submission To Congress.—Not later than 150 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and consistent with the protection of classified information, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the findings of the assessment required under subsection (a), together with any related information regarding best practices for countering radicalization at the State, local, tribal, and territorial levels. SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT-SPONSORED CLEARANCES. Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of the number of employees of State, local, tribal, and territorial governments with security clearances sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security. Such notification shall include a detailed list of the agencies that employ such employees, the levels of clearance held by such employees, and whether such employees are assigned as representatives to State and major urban area fusion centers. SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY COUNTERTERRORISM ADVISORY BOARD. (a) In General.—At the end of subtitle A of title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) insert the following new section: “SEC. 210G. DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION ON COUNTERTERRORISM. “(a) Establishment.—There is in the Department a board to be composed of senior representatives of departmental operational components and headquarters elements. The purpose of the board shall be to coordinate and integrate departmental intelligence, activities, and policy related to the counterterrorism mission and functions of the Department. “(b) Charter.—There shall be a charter to govern the structure and mission of the board. Such charter shall direct the board to focus on the current threat environment and the importance of aligning departmental counterterrorism activities under the Secretary’s guidance. The charter shall be reviewed and updated every four years, as appropriate. “(c) Members.— “(1) CHAIR.—The Secretary shall appoint a Coordinator for Counterterrorism within the Department who will serve as the chair of the board. “(2) ADDITIONAL MEMBERS.—The Secretary shall appoint additional members of the board from among the following: “(A) The Transportation Security Administration. “(B) United States Customs and Border Protection. “(C) United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “(D) The Federal Emergency Management Agency. “(E) The Coast Guard. “(F) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. “(G) The United States Secret Service. “(H) The National Protection and Programs Directorate. “(I) The Office of Operations Coordination. “(J) The Office of the General Counsel. “(K) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis. “(L) The Office of Policy. “(M) The Science and Technology Directorate. “(N) Other Departmental offices and programs as determined appropriate by the Secretary. “(d) Meetings.—The board shall meet on a regular basis to discuss intelligence and coordinate ongoing threat mitigation efforts and departmental activities, including coordination with other Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners, and shall make recommendations to the Secretary. “(e) Terrorism Alerts.—The board shall advise the Secretary on the issuance of terrorism alerts pursuant to section 203 of this Act. “(f) Prohibition On Additional Funds.—No additional funds are authorized to carry out this section.”. (b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 210F the following new item: SEC. 6. TESTIMONIALS (a) In General.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall incorporate, to the extent practicable, into Department of Homeland Security efforts to combat terrorist recruitment and communications the public testimonials of former violent extremists or their associates, including friends and family. Such efforts may include the following: (1) Counter-messaging of foreign terrorist organization communications and narratives. (2) Related community engagement and public education efforts. (b) Coordination.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the efforts described in subsection (a) with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, and, to the extent practicable, engage nongovernmental and international partners in the identification and use of testimonials described in such subsection. (c) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to collect testimonials directly from former violent extremists or their associates, including friends and family. SEC. 7. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized. SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) The term “appropriate congressional committees” means— (A) the Committee on Homeland Security and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate. (2) The term “radicalization” means ideologically motivated international terrorism or domestic terrorism, as such terms are defined in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code.
  12. James Grant

    Mid-Session Schedules

    James Grant 2 fundraisers
  13. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    We support the statues remaining where they are just like most Americans. We're not supporting the fringe like you do.
  14. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    Representative Goodwin says Governor Sharp is not being a true conservative for conserving Southern history. No irony in that at all.
  15. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    Just saw the highlights from the low energy Fitzpatrick town hall. So hilarious how he just ran out of there when the questions were too much for him to handle. If he thought that was hard does he think being President will be any easier? Pathetic!
  16. James Grant

    Fitzpatrick Town Hall

    Mr. Fitzpatrick, You have said in this very town hall that if an illegal commits a crime they should be deported. You've also criticized governor Lewinsky as an extremist on immigration for an executive order to do just that. Are you an extremist as well then?
  17. James Grant

    Fitzpatrick Town Hall

    And the Wall Street journal made no mention of tariffs. Were GM reacting to tariffs on foreign cars why would they leave domestically? It seems like you're just committing a Post Hoc fallacy Mr. PHD.
  18. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    GM has received more money from American taxpayers than the savings they will get from closing down North American factories. Yet this is how they repay us. No loyalty to this country! Cut their subsidies!
  19. James Grant

    @RNCGrant

    Having a Nobel Prize in economics doesn't mean you're impervious to having dumb ideas, just look at Paul Krugman
  20. James Grant

    Fitzpatrick Town Hall

    OOC: I'll ask the question without citing the link Mr. Fitzpatrick, You've claimed that it was Trump's tariffs that caused GM to close factories in the United States. What is your proof of that exactly? Have you talked to GM headquarters? Who is to say these decisions weren't structural in nature and have nothing to do with tariffs?
  21. From the Office of RNC Chairman James Grant The recent Tuition Tax Deduction Act introduced by Darren Fitzpatrick is put quite simply a joke. He says "I think this should be a bipartisan bill" but declaring what it should be in his opinion does not make it a bipartisan bill and nobody in their right mind in the Republican party would support such dumb idea. Let's do some rough estimating on the cost of this. There is around 20 million people who go to college in this country and it costs around 10 thousand a year (ignoring much more expensive private school costs). That's $200 billion dollars for this new entitlement he wants to create. That's $1.2 trillion in debt over the decade. What was the point in passing a budget with a reduced deficit if we were to take on this massive expense? Not to mention were all college tuition expenses covered by the government in these tax deductions now that would be great incentive for college to raise costs. They'd have to with the flood of new applicants they'd have. So this all would likely cost even more. This kind of flooding of the college market additionally hurts the value of a degree. It will just turn having a bachelors degree the new high school degree forcing people to spend more time in college and less time being productive in the economy just to stand out from the crowd in the job market. For a former economist, nothing about this idea seems rational. His entire argument for the bill is just based around appeals to emotion playing on class division, not any sort of statistical conclusion. He claims income inequality is only getting worse, but research by the the National Bureau of Economic Research found free college not only declines the quality of education it increases inequality. What a fraud these Bernie wannabee types are. Nobel prizes don't mean what they used to ever since Obama got one I guess.
  22. James Grant From the Office of RNC Chairman James Grant The recent Tuition Tax Deduction Act introduced by Darren Fitzpatrick is put quite simply a joke. He says "I think this should be a bipartisan bill" but declaring what it should be in his opinion does not make it a bipartisan bill and nobody in their right mind in the Republican party would support such dumb idea. Let's do some rough estimating on the cost of this. There is around 20 million people who go to college in this country and it costs around 10 thousand a year (ignoring much more expensive private school costs). That's $200 billion dollars for this new entitlement he wants to create. That's $1.2 trillion in debt over the decade. What was the point in passing a budget with a reduced deficit if we were to take on this massive expense? Not to mention were all college tuition expenses covered by the government in these tax deductions now that would be great incentive for college to raise costs. They'd have to with the flood of new applicants they'd have. So this all would likely cost even more. This kind of flooding of the college market additionally hurts the value of a degree. It will just turn having a bachelors degree the new high school degree forcing people to spend more time in college and less time being productive in the economy just to stand out from the crowd in the job market. For a former economist, nothing about this idea seems rational. His entire argument for the bill is just based around appeals to emotion playing on class division, not any sort of statistical conclusion. He claims income inequality is only getting worse, but research by the the National Bureau of Economic Research found free college not only declines the quality of education it increases inequality. What a fraud these Bernie wannabee types are. Nobel prizes don't mean what they used to ever since Obama got one I guess. View full PR
  23. James Grant

    Fitzpatrick Town Hall

    Mr. Fitzpatrick, You've claimed that it was Trump's tariffs that caused GM to close factories in the United States. What is your proof of that exactly? Have you talked to GM headquarters? Because University of Michigan economist Don Grimes has said these closures were structural and have nothing to do with Trump's tariffs
  24. James Grant

    Brown holds town hall in New Hampshire

    Mr. Brown, Should we tax foreign importation of carbon into our country?
×