Jump to content
IGNORED

The Golden Couple (Ivanka and Jared)


GreyhoundFan

Recommended Posts

A Maryland lawmaker has proposed the "Jared Kushner Act", but I don't think he'll be thrilled, since it's not meant in a flattering way.

Spoiler

A Maryland lawmaker has introduced a bill named for President Trump’s son-in-law that is intended to stop judges from ordering the arrest of tenants who owe their landlords up to $5,000 in unpaid rent.

Del. Bilal Ali (D-Baltimore City), the bill’s sponsor, called the measure the Jared Kushner Act, because Kushner’s apartment management company has aggressively used the controversial debt-collection tactic.

A Baltimore Sun investigation last year found that corporate entities affiliated with Kushner Cos.’ 17 apartment complexes in Maryland sought the civil arrest of 105 former tenants — the most of any Maryland company between 2013 and 2017. All had allegedly failed to appear in court to respond to charges of unpaid rent.

“It’s like being jailed because you’re poor,” Ali said.

Under the bill, civil arrests for unpaid rent, known as body attachments, would be prohibited if the amount of debt is $5,000 or less.

Ali said he decided to name the bill after Kushner — a senior adviser at the White House — because “he has reaped a lot of wealth off of the backs of poor people. . . . He owns these properties and has to take ownership of that. . . . He just happens to be No. 45’s son-in-law.”

Christine Taylor, a spokeswoman for Kushner Cos., said the bill is “politically motivated.”

Taylor said in a statement that the firm’s attorneys in Maryland have handled “these matters consistent with other attorneys in similar situations there and in accordance with Maryland law. A body attachment is issued by a court for the failure to abide by two court orders, and is not in any way related to the ability or failure of a debtor to pay a debt. Also, it is not a process limited to landlord/tenant matters. . . . For a couple of local politicians to sponsor a bill called the Jared Kushner Act when neither Kushner Companies nor Jared Kushner, when he worked at Kushner Companies, had anything to do with these issues is petty.”

Similar legislation — but without the Kushner title — was proposed last year by state Sen. William C. Smith Jr. (D-Montgomery). Smith withdrew it after judges, the state bar association and several members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee argued that some form of civil arrest still was necessary in unpaid rent cases.

Judges need to be able to compel tenants who are delinquent to provide information about their assets, these critics said, so the court can determine what they should have to pay. Smith said Wednesday that he plans to file another bill that would allow for that process, but would prohibit the practice of jailing those who cannot come up with relatively small amounts of unpaid rent.

Under Smith’s proposal, which he said he developed in consultation with the office of Maryland’s attorney general, Brian E. Frosh (D), and consumer advocacy groups, a renter who owes back rent would still get arrested. But instead of going to jail, the renter would fill out paperwork about their assets. Once the paperwork is completed, the renter would be let go. Ali’s bill does not include that option.

“The problem we are trying to solve is people getting sent to jail because they’re poor,” Smith said. “Our approach is a more tailored approach to the problem of real people sitting in jail. Under this bill, that wouldn’t happen.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 556
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nobody wanted to read Ivanka's book

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/feb/01/ivanka-trump-wayne-rooney-and-the-art-of-the-bad-book-deal-women-who-work

Quote

Estimates are out for how much publisher Portfolio might have lost on Ivanka Trump’s book, and they won’t be happy reading for the US’s “first daughter”, or her publisher. Women Who Work was conceived, its author has said, after she appeared on The Apprentice years ago and received “a flood of letters from young women asking for guidance”. This made her realise “the need for more female leaders to speak out publicly in order to change the way society thinks and talks about ‘women who work’”.

Unfortunately, it seems that not that many people wanted to listen. According to Forbes, the book sold 31,900 copies between publication in May 2017 and the end of the year. Crunching the numbers, Forbes says this means the book has earned around $1.1m (£772,000), of which the publisher will have received $566,000. But it paid an estimated $787,500 advance, with a second advance instalment to follow. Forbes estimates that this means Portfolio – which has yet to comment - has lost “at least” $220,000 on the book.

Publisher Melville House puts the sum higher, speculating that Portfolio might be down as much as $500,000, and adding that “the upshot of all of this is the observation that Ivanka has mastered her father Donald’s greatest skill: convincing people to take on absurd amounts of risk, while paying for the privilege”.

Quote

Forbes calculates that Ivanka would have to sell more than 200,000 copies of Women Who Work in order to earn out her advance – the point at which she would start being paid royalties. Perhaps she might consider taking a tip or two from Michael Wolff, whose insider account of the Trump White House, Fire and Fury, sold more than 324,000 copies in the US last week – and is, according to Mother Jones, on track to eclipse even The Art of the Deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, the Trump fans who were mad about Trump "letting" his daughter marry a Jewish man are going to lose their shit today:

:tw_joy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Ivanka's aaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllll about making it better for families: "Trump’s paid family leave plan would punish those who choose to have kids"

Spoiler

Early in the fifth century, the theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo noted something about families and society that, in his era, was simply conventional wisdom: “After the city, or political community, comes the world, following the convention that treats the household, city, and world as three successive levels of human society.” For the ancients, families were the first and smallest societies, units of cooperation and order within which people learn to get along with others. Together, families formed political communities — cities, as Augustine put it; and together, those political communities made up the world, which was a society of communities. Peace and order in each domain contributed to the peace and order of the next, and thus society had an interest in fostering functional families, and families an interest in forming functional societies.

What sense it all made! And how strange it is to have completely dismissed the idea in modern thought. Our world is one of individuals making a series of contracts and agreements with one another in hopes of getting the most one can out of the world; the lives of others are none of our business, and ours are none of theirs. Nowhere is this clearer than in conservative policymaking, where family policy is absurdly individualized.

Consider the paid parental leave plan teased in President Trump’s State of the Union address, which has now gained traction with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ivanka Trump. The plan, described as “a budget-neutral approach to parental leave” by advocates, would allow parents to draw from their Social Security benefits early to fund their parental leave, then require them to delay the collection of retirement benefits by some yet-to-be-calculated period of time. Participation would be strictly voluntary. 

It’s a highly individualized way of dealing with the facts of family life — which by their nature are communal issues: Babies and children need caregivers, mothers and fathers need time and money to give care, elderly grandparents and great-grandparents need companionship and assistance. Babies and children learn and grow, adults work and produce, and the elderly help and rest. There is a place for every stage of the life cycle in the grand order of things, and a just state would ideally defer to that natural rhythm. Instead, conservatives’ plan would penalize the elderly for their decision to have raised families, all in the interest of making parental leave a self-contained option, no burden to anyone but the parents themselves. 

The proposal would penalize bigger families more than smaller ones; couples with more children would face working further into old age before receiving retirement benefits. Moreover, it would likely mean that lower-wage workers would end up putting off retirement longer than wealthier workers with ample company benefits, an especially perverse outcome given that America’s poor suffer significantly reduced life expectancies compared with the country’s rich. If you’re not particularly well-to-do and you want a family, in other words, you’ll need to be prepared to pay for it in your old age: your family, your choice, your problem. 

It actually is in the best interest of society that people have children, and it would be in society’s best interest for them to be provided with the time and means to nurture those children. In their more lucid moments, even tax-slashing, welfare-reforming Republicans recognize as much: House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) himself observed in December that economies simply don’t function unless people have children. Today’s infants, lovingly cared for by their parents, will become tomorrow’s producers and inventors and administrators, and will, in time, look after their elders in their dotage. That this cycle of life continues unhindered is everyone’s business, because our fortunes and futures rest on the arrival of helpless little ones who will one day be our caretakers, in many senses.

It’s worth a tax to see that families aren’t penalized for bringing forth new generations, and that the elderly have time to rest and look back on their lives with satisfaction. It’s worth the support of society at large. It’s worth everything.

You know, my company decided to offer a new program, to help employees who want "more flexibility". Basically, you can work fewer hours, so you can have more time to take care of personal matters. Of course, your pay and benefits will be cut accordingly. Oh, and you still have to get the same amount of work done. I'm wondering if executive management had Ivanka come in and design this program, since it sounds as dumb as one of her ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Jared.  Jared is in debt.  People give Jared money and Jared promises to pay them back. Jared is rich.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

This is Jared.  Jared is in debt.  People give Jared money and Jared promises to pay them back. Jared is rich.

 

I'm sorry, I know this is a bit off topic but does he pluck his eyebrows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • samurai_sarah locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.