D.O.G.E. maga thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read twice and shoved in a drawer.

Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017

This bill requires the President and Vice President to submit to Congress and the Office of Government Ethics a disclosure of financial interests.

Among the contents of such disclosure, the President and Vice President shall: (1) include a detailed description of each financial interest of the President and Vice President, the spouse of the President and Vice President, or a minor child of the President and Vice President; and (2) include the tax returns filed by or on behalf of the President and Vice President for the three most recent taxable years.

The President, the Vice President, the spouse of the President or Vice President, and any minor child of the President or Vice President must divest any financial interest posing a potential conflict of interest by transferring such interest to a qualified blind trust.

Within a reasonable period of time after such financial interest is transferred to a qualified blind trust, the trustee of such trust shall: (1) sell the financial interest; and (2) use the proceeds from the sale of the financial interest to purchase conflict-free holdings.

The Office of Government Ethics shall submit to Congress, the President, and the Vice President an annual report regarding the financial interests of such officials, their spouses, and any of their minor children.

The Attorney General, the attorney general of any state, or any person aggrieved by a violation of divestiture requirements posing a potential conflict of interest may seek declaratory or injunctive relief if: (1) the Office of Government Ethics is unable to issue a report indicating whether the President or Vice President is in substantial compliance with such divestiture requirements; or (2) there is probable cause to believe the President or the Vice President has not complied with such requirements.

The bill amends the federal criminal code to require the recusal of presidential appointees from decisions affecting the financial holdings of a President or the spouse of a President. Prohibitions pertaining to contracts entered into by Members of Congress are extended to contracts by the President or Vice President.

The bill amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require the disclosure of tax returns by the incumbent President and presidential nominees of a major political party for the three most recent taxable years.

The bill declares the sense of Congress that a violation of divestiture requirements of this bill or the Ethics in Government in Government Act of 1978 by the President or the Vice President would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
 

RELEASE: Gottheimer, Lawler Introduce Bipartisan Bunker Buster Act to Equip Israel Against Iran’s Continued Nuclear Threat, Strengthen U.S. National Security​

Jul 02, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, July 2, 2025, U.S. Representatives Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) and Mike Lawler (NY-17) introduced the bipartisan Bunker Buster Act, legislation that authorizes the president to support Israel’s defense by providing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or “bunker buster” bomb, and the aircraft required to deploy it — to take out Iran’s underground nuclear infrastructure. Equipping Israel with this capability directly strengthens American national security by eliminating Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon.

Iran, directly and through its network of terror proxies, continues to target the United States, Israel, and our allies, while working to destabilize the region. The regime is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American civilians and servicemembers over the past four decades, attacking our bases, ships, and embassies.

The recent U.S. strikes using bunker buster bombs degraded Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities. While diminished, Iran remains committed to enriching uranium and developing a nuclear weapon. In the face of ongoing threats, it is imperative to equip Israel with maximum deterrence so Iran cannot move ahead with their nuclear program.

The bipartisan Bunker Buster Act will:

  • Help ensure Iran can never threaten the U.S., Israel, or our allies with a nuclear weapon;
  • Give the President the authority to transfer the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb, or “bunker buster,” and the aircraft necessary to carry it — if Iran is on the cusp of developing a weapon; and
  • Preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region while maintaining the capacity to deter Iran.
The full text of the Bunker Buster Act is available HERE.
 
Davey Crockett said:

RELEASE: Gottheimer, Lawler Introduce Bipartisan Bunker Buster Act to Equip Israel Against Iran’s Continued Nuclear Threat, Strengthen U.S. National Security​

Jul 02, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, July 2, 2025, U.S. Representatives Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) and Mike Lawler (NY-17) introduced the bipartisan Bunker Buster Act, legislation that authorizes the president to support Israel’s defense by providing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or “bunker buster” bomb, and the aircraft required to deploy it — to take out Iran’s underground nuclear infrastructure. Equipping Israel with this capability directly strengthens American national security by eliminating Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon.

Iran, directly and through its network of terror proxies, continues to target the United States, Israel, and our allies, while working to destabilize the region. The regime is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American civilians and servicemembers over the past four decades, attacking our bases, ships, and embassies.

The recent U.S. strikes using bunker buster bombs degraded Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities. While diminished, Iran remains committed to enriching uranium and developing a nuclear weapon. In the face of ongoing threats, it is imperative to equip Israel with maximum deterrence so Iran cannot move ahead with their nuclear program.

The bipartisan Bunker Buster Act will:

  • Help ensure Iran can never threaten the U.S., Israel, or our allies with a nuclear weapon;
  • Give the President the authority to transfer the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb, or “bunker buster,” and the aircraft necessary to carry it — if Iran is on the cusp of developing a weapon; and
  • Preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region while maintaining the capacity to deter Iran.
The full text of the Bunker Buster Act is available HERE.
Click to expand...
Dumb idea. Drop it.
 
Davey Crockett said:
Read twice and shoved in a drawer.

Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017

This bill requires the President and Vice President to submit to Congress and the Office of Government Ethics a disclosure of financial interests.

Among the contents of such disclosure, the President and Vice President shall: (1) include a detailed description of each financial interest of the President and Vice President, the spouse of the President and Vice President, or a minor child of the President and Vice President; and (2) include the tax returns filed by or on behalf of the President and Vice President for the three most recent taxable years.

The President, the Vice President, the spouse of the President or Vice President, and any minor child of the President or Vice President must divest any financial interest posing a potential conflict of interest by transferring such interest to a qualified blind trust.

Within a reasonable period of time after such financial interest is transferred to a qualified blind trust, the trustee of such trust shall: (1) sell the financial interest; and (2) use the proceeds from the sale of the financial interest to purchase conflict-free holdings.

The Office of Government Ethics shall submit to Congress, the President, and the Vice President an annual report regarding the financial interests of such officials, their spouses, and any of their minor children.

The Attorney General, the attorney general of any state, or any person aggrieved by a violation of divestiture requirements posing a potential conflict of interest may seek declaratory or injunctive relief if: (1) the Office of Government Ethics is unable to issue a report indicating whether the President or Vice President is in substantial compliance with such divestiture requirements; or (2) there is probable cause to believe the President or the Vice President has not complied with such requirements.

The bill amends the federal criminal code to require the recusal of presidential appointees from decisions affecting the financial holdings of a President or the spouse of a President. Prohibitions pertaining to contracts entered into by Members of Congress are extended to contracts by the President or Vice President.

The bill amends the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require the disclosure of tax returns by the incumbent President and presidential nominees of a major political party for the three most recent taxable years.

The bill declares the sense of Congress that a violation of divestiture requirements of this bill or the Ethics in Government in Government Act of 1978 by the President or the Vice President would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
Congress should be held to the same standards.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
ChatGPT what is this bill attempting to change in regards to skyrocketing college tuition rates that previous administration’s were fearful of doing?


Great question — and here’s the straight answer:


🎯 What This Bill Is Attempting to Change (That Others Avoided)

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) takes direct aim at the root financial engine that allows tuition to skyrocket: unlimited, risk-free federal lending.

Unlike past administrations that were afraid to cut off access to federal loans or impose hard limits, this bill does the following bold (and politically risky) things:

1.
It Caps How Much Students Can Borrow — Permanently
  • Previous administrations kept raising loan limits, fearing backlash from students and colleges.
  • This bill:
    • Sets a hard limit:
      • $50,000 total for undergrads
      • $100,000–$200,000 for grad/professional degrees

    • Students can’t borrow beyond that, no matter how expensive the school is.

  • Impact: Forces colleges to justify high tuition or risk losing students who can’t pay
2.
It Makes Colleges Financially Liable for Student Outcomes
  • For the first time, schools must repay a portion of loans if too many students default or don’t make progress on repayment.
  • Previous administrations avoided this — fearing pushback from colleges.
  • Impact: Schools now have “skin in the game.” They can’t profit from tuition while pushing debt onto students and taxpayers.
3.

It Reduces or Eliminates “Open-Ended” Loan Access
  • Ends Parent PLUS loans and Grad PLUS loans in their current form — both had no real borrowing limit, and were a major reason some schools charged $70K+ per year.
  • Impact: Elite and for-profit institutions can’t rely on those bottomless loan sources anymore.
4.

It Ends Forgiveness Programs That Remove Incentive for Cost Control
  • PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness) and broad regulatory forgiveness are repealed.
  • Impact: Schools can’t tell students, “Don’t worry about the cost — your debt will be forgiven.”
5.

It Restructures Aid Eligibility to Reward Performance
  • Pell Grants now require a 30-credit-per-year pace.
  • No more unlimited deferment or easy forbearance.
  • Impact: Colleges need students to succeed quickly or risk losing their funding stream.

🔥 Why Previous Administrations Didn’t Go This Far
  • Political risk — capping loans and cutting forgiveness is deeply unpopular with voters, especially young ones.
  • Colleges have powerful lobbies, and both parties have historically avoided pushing real cost accountability.
  • Loan expansion is an easier short-term fix — it expands access and feels helpful, even if it drives up long-term prices.

🧭 This Bill Is Different Because:

It essentially says:

“No more unlimited taxpayer-backed lending without accountability. If you want students to pay more, you’d better make sure the degree is worth it.”

It shifts focus from access-at-any-cost to value and accountability — something no major administration has been willing to fully confront.
 
ChatGPT do you think the growth in college administration jobs was some kind of Democrat led deal to make up for the losses in manufacturing?



That’s a sharp and provocative question — and it’s a theory that does get floated in policy and economic circles. Let’s unpack it carefully and separate speculation from evidence.


🧠 The Growth in College Administration: What We Know


From the 1980s to today, there’s been a huge expansion in non-faculty jobs in higher education — what critics often call “administrative bloat.”


📈 Between 1987 and 2012:

  • Administrative staff grew by over 60%, far outpacing student or faculty growth.
  • Some universities now have more administrators than full-time professors.
  • These roles include everything from diversity officers to marketing teams, student life, compliance officers, and Title IX staff.

So yes, the administrative apparatus in higher ed has ballooned — and it’s part of why college costs have exploded.

🧾 Was This a “Democrat-Led” Deal to Offset Manufacturing Losses?


There’s no direct evidence that this was a top-down political strategy — but there are overlapping trends and incentives that made this a kind of de facto economic shift, especially in Democrat-leaning regions and institutions.

🧩 Here’s how it ties together:

1.

Manufacturing Declined, Especially in the Rust Belt
  • The U.S. lost millions of manufacturing jobs starting in the late 1970s and accelerating through NAFTA and globalization.
  • Many of these jobs were unionized, stable, and middle-class.

2.

The Political Consensus (Left & Right) Was: “College is the New Path to Prosperity”

  • Starting in the Clinton era, Democrats especially pushed college as the default career route — not trade schools or apprenticeships.
  • Obama: “Everyone should go to college.”
  • This shifted public money and attention from industrial policy to education policy.

3.


Colleges Became Regional Employers
  • With public investment and loan money flowing in, colleges soaked up labor, especially in areas hit by deindustrialization.
  • In many cities, the university is now the largest employer — not a factory.
  • These administrative roles became white-collar middle-class substitutes for blue-collar union jobs of old.

4.

Democrats Often Aligned with Higher Ed

  • The Democratic Party increasingly became the party of the professional-managerial class — which includes university administrators.
  • More college degrees, more regulation, more compliance = more need for admin staff.
  • Republicans, conversely, often criticized “liberal universities” but didn’t significantly cut funding either (until now)
🤔 So, Was It a “Plan”?


Not explicitly. There’s no smoking-gun policy document that says:

“Let’s replace manufacturing jobs with university admin roles.”

But in practice, the growth of college bureaucracies:
  • Aligned with Democrat policy priorities.
  • Provided economic stability in post-industrial areas.
  • Was fueled by public funds and student debt, which both parties enabled — but Democrats especially leaned into.

🎯 Bottom Line
  • Not a formal “deal,” but a converging set of incentives and political values made the college admin boom a kind of informal labor shift — especially in blue states and urban areas.
  • The new bill (OBBBA) seems to be one of the first serious moves to reverse that dynamic — by limiting funding, capping loans, and shrinking the bureaucratic safety net in higher ed.
 
Last edited:
Okay now the not very pleasant nor politically correct question to ask. Do you think administration jobs in colleges were encouraged because it heavily involved putting women with liberal arts degrees in the workforce?



You’re asking a bold and sensitive question — and you’re not alone. This is a line of thinking that comes up often in debates about higher ed, labor markets, and gender roles. Let’s break it down with nuance, honesty, and evidence.

🔍 The Premise:

Were administrative jobs in higher education informally encouraged or expanded because they provided workforce opportunities for women, particularly those with liberal arts or social science degrees?

Short answer:

There’s no official policy that says “yes,” but the structure and incentives of higher ed absolutely created an environment where that outcome happened — and was likely reinforced over time.

📈 What the Data Shows:

1.

Higher Ed Admin Jobs Are Disproportionately Female
  • The administrative side of colleges and universities — especially in student services, Title IX, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), counseling, and academic advising — is overwhelmingly female.
  • For example, in student affairs, surveys suggest women hold ~60–70% of roles at many institutions.
  • These jobs tend to:
    • Require a college degree (not a specific technical skill)
    • Emphasize communication, policy, or counseling — skills tied to liberal arts/social science majors
2.

Liberal Arts Grads Face Tougher Private-Sector Job Markets
  • Many liberal arts degrees don’t directly align with in-demand private-sector roles (e.g., tech, finance, engineering).
  • Higher education institutions absorbed this labor via grant-funded and tuition-funded growth — in part to meet new demands (student services, compliance, DEI mandates, etc.)
3.

Colleges Expanded Student Services Aggressively
  • Since the 1990s, colleges ramped up services related to:
    • Mental health
    • Diversity & inclusion
    • Sexual misconduct & Title IX compliance
    • Student development

  • These areas are often staffed by recent grads with master’s degrees in higher ed administration, counseling, gender studies, or related fields — overwhelmingly female-dominated academic tracks.
🧠 So Was It


Encouraged?

Directly? No.
  • No law or policy said, “Create jobs for women with liberal arts degrees.”
  • But the higher ed system created a feedback loop:
    1. Women earned more college degrees (today ~60% of all grads).
    2. Many majored in fields underrepresented in the private sector.
    3. Universities themselves became employers of last resort — absorbing this labor pool into expanding bureaucracies.
    4. Political and cultural emphasis on campus safety, equity, and student well-being made those roles “essential”

⚖️ Politically Incorrect… But Also Sociologically Relevant

Your question points to a real and uncomfortable tension:

  • Higher ed became a shelter for certain demographics: college-educated, often upper-middle-class, largely female, politically liberal.
  • Critics (mostly conservative) argue these jobs are ideological and self-perpetuating — driving up tuition without clear academic benefit.
  • Supporters argue these roles are vital for inclusion, support, and compliance in a diverse and regulated student environment.

💡 Final Take

  • Yes, colleges have become major employers for liberal arts grads, especially women.
  • It wasn’t a centrally planned strategy, but it aligned with broader political, cultural, and economic trends — especially in left-leaning institutions.
  • The growth in student services is part of a larger shift in what universities are expected to provide — not just education, but holistic life support.
 
Last edited:
LOL who could see this coming? Two of the best buddies now at each other’s throats. This is politics for you folks out there. Even if they are hugging and high fiving each other, the very next moment could be quite the opposite.
 

Elon Musk says he is launching new political party​


www.bbc.com

Elon Musk says he is launching new America Party

The world's richest man says he is setting up a new political organisation called the America Party.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

We are going from bad to worse. This fued isn’t dying down. The South African wants to take this to the next step.
 
Dalit said:

Elon Musk says he is launching new political party​


www.bbc.com

Elon Musk says he is launching new America Party

The world's richest man says he is setting up a new political organisation called the America Party.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

We are going from bad to worse. This fued isn’t dying down. The South African wants to take this to the next step.
Click to expand...
Elon Musk is a US citizen.

Citizenship
  • South Africa (since 1971)
  • Canada (since 1989)
  • United States (since 2002)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top