« Paris burning | Main | Where I'm at »

April 18, 2019

Comments

I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.

As it very clearly includes both citizens and non citizens in the requirement to count, then yes.

And can you explain what you mean by “illegal” in this context ?
In terms of law, rather that political talking points.

I guess Marty is referring to all government buildings in DC being shiny white.
I'd not be opposed to a Minoan/Mycenean color scheme applied to some (at night this could be done with projectors, so no actual paint job would be necessary).

I think that's just a conscious attempt to ape the classical architecture of Greece and Rome ?

Of course the classical built environment was in all likelihood considerably more colourful than we think of it today....
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-whiteness-in-classical-sculpture

I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.

Then I would defer to the original intent and the plain text of the passage in question.

(LOLOLOLOLOL...I've waited years to say that.)

I wonder if the text of the constitution anticipates people refusing to answer, or being illegal.

This is simply an emanation in search of a penumbra.

And not a fragrant emanation, at that.

Apologies Pro Bono

Thank you russell, but no need. If I fail to make myself understood to a reasonable person, it's on me.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party, despite almost always losing the popular vote, has succeeded in appointing a highly partisan Supreme Court so far right that John Roberts - John Roberts - is the swing vote. And I've never heard a Republican express the slightest embarrassment at that.

I believe, we are fighting for what's best for the country and having to make a much harder choice than any Democrat.

But many of us, me included, think that the means you are using are so destructive that talk of "what's best" is nonsense, unless you believe that destroying democracy is in its best interest.

You have every right to argue for and vote your policy preferences. But the means now being used to establish them are essentially an anti-democratic coup.

I think it's time to invoke Cleek's Law.

i tried to invoke it,
long form, on the last page.

well fuuuuuuddddggge.

(except I didn't say "fudge.")

fixed -- wj

I managed to extract the URL from your broken link to get to your comment, if that makes you feel any better.

Nigel, yes I was referring to antiquity but the preclassic era (and in particular the pre-dark age) seems to have been even more abundant in colour with geometric and figural paintings on almost any wall.
I also prefer black-figure vase painting to classical red-figure.
If we go colour, classical is boooring! Archaic is hip!
But I am open to compromise: the GOP wing gets an Assyrian scheme while the Dems can chose anything Greek. The common areas have to be Minoan though.

Shooting themselves and each other saves decent Americans from doing it to them:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/27/nrdisarray-update-open-thread/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/north-to-leave-as-president-of-nra

The conservative movement is a thoroughly corrupt, evil, murderous grift.

It must die.

It must die the world over:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/jair-bolsonaros-southern-strategy

What does it say that, in a dispute between the NRA President and their CEO, one finds oneself aligning with Oliver North? As the lesser evil, of course. But still....

A cautionary tale. Long read, but there be snap quizzes on the fly:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/george-packer-pax-americana-richard-holbrooke/586042/

Long excerpt:

"Another place where the American century ended was Bosnia.

Twenty years after Dayton, five years after Holbrooke died when his aorta tore open during a meeting in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office, a woman in Sarajevo named Aida began to experience insomnia. Though she had lived through the entire siege, she never counted herself among the hundreds of thousands of Bosnians with post-traumatic stress disorder, but now, two decades after the war, she lay awake night after night, unable to take her eyes off the American presidential campaign on TV. Something about the people at Donald Trump’s rallies was deeply familiar to Aida—their clothes, their faces, their teeth, the men’s mustaches, the women’s hair and makeup, the illogic of their grievances, their rage, their need for an enemy. She knew these people, and as she watched them her heartbeat raced, her breathing turned rapid and shallow. She began having flashbacks, not to the war but to the years just before it, when things once unacceptable even to think suddenly became commonplace to say, until every boundary of decency was erased. Moments in the American campaign brought up uncanny counterparts from those years in the Balkans. Late one night, during the Republican National Convention, Aida suddenly heard the voices of 1 million Serbs in the streets of Belgrade shouting for the head of a Kosovar leader—“Arrest Vllasi! Arrest Vllasi!”—while Milošević cupped his ear and goaded them: “I can’t hear you!” In Cleveland they were chanting “Lock her up! Lock her up!”

Aida knew where it would all lead, and she tried to warn her American friends that Trump was going to win. They found this hilarious, especially when she offered them a refuge in her country, in her house—a hiding place in Bosnia after the shit hit the fan in America and her Bay Area friends realized that the other side had all the weapons. Trump’s victory inspired no “I told you so”s from Aida. After all, she had refused to see her own war coming."

p and the conservative nationalist movement must be disappeared.

Crooked lockemup nutballs North and LaPierre are accusing each other of various theft and extortion attempts at the Only We Are True AmericaNRA.

Now, I think each, who are presumably armed at all times to interdict just these types of criminal behavior in the normal everyday goings of life, and the ensuing impoliteness, should try and get the first shot (to goddamned kill each other) in, as they advise the, uh, citizenry to do in similar situations, particularly when set upon with armed force, and are ya tellin me they both forgot to wear sidearms in this case?

Sez right in the handbook and they did a secret handshake to make it a blood oath.

But look, both are still standing unharmed.

Ya know why? They left their guns on the kitchen counter at home where their grand kids are holding the babysitter hostage in the bathroom.

So, no guns, ipso fatso, Edith, no firearm injuries during those occasions of peak anger and betrayal.

Fuck them.

Packer could point out the dangers of right wing nationalism without all the romantic bilge about Holbrooke.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-holbrooke-represe_b_796447

Sorry. Packer just annoys me. That whole genre annoys me— the one where some bureaucrat with at best a very mixed record is portrayed as some heroic figure.

The point that nationalism and ethnic hatred are bad things and that we have these problems here I agree with.

Donald, I get your objections to Packer.

My opinions of his stuff over the years are at best uneven.

I'm not sure though how you write about Bosnia and Serbia during the Clinton years without placing Holbrooke at the center, although Holbrooke, as Packer points out, had a stymied diplomatic career as a result of his arrogance and other percieved character flaws and was controversial throughout.

While I'm at it, since your read TAC regularly, I get a little giddy in the gills when so many of their writers throw in adoringly with grand (in retrospect) historical movements, as if they were there and suffered along with. Their religious and philosophical maunderings strike me as suffering from "extreme heaviosity" to steal from Woody Allen, and I think Packer does a bit of that too.

It's the "Tacitus complex", self-important world-ranging views from a guy with a keyboard, as if he is the real item addressing us from some time in the reign of Nero.

Get over yourselves.

TAC's latest obsession with the "symbolism" of the tragic Notre Dame fire and how the French should rebuild the spire are ripe with martyred self-importance and victimhood, particularly Dreher, who believes, hysterically (not ha ha, but whackadoodle) that he alone is preventing the arches of worldwide Christendom from collapsing from the weight and depredations of "liquid modernity".

Many of their writers are a bit jealous of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus, perhaps longing to take their places, although if they learned historically that one of the thieves was LGBT, whoa, hold on Nelly, can we get some burning at the take action going here too.

I go there mainly for the reading suggestions and to imagine punching Buchanan in his florid face.

Related to the long quote from the Bosnian woman above:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/04/27/guest-links-trumps-rhetoric-rise-anti-semitism-fox-news-suddenly-cuts-commercial/223579

FOX must have their broadcasting license revoked.

Pure anti-Semitic cowardice in defense of the lout p.

That's my contribution to the Tacitus complex.

YMMV.

I agree with most of that, John. But if one is going to write about Holbrooke, tell the bad as well as the good. And I doubt his motives even in Yugoslavia were that pure, given his actions elsewhere.

On TAC, you are right about the self dramatization of some of the writers. This is a white American conservative Christian thing. It really is true that Christians in some other countries are suffering from often murderous persecution, but Christians here sometimes like to playact about such things. A Syrian Christian worried about Islamic jihadists is in a slightly different situation from somebody who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

It seems a bit chancy to discuss "purity of motive" regarding others. Some do have impure motives. But others merely have motives which are different from one's own.

It is possible for someone's motives to be objectionable, but for them to be acting consistently, and not hypocritically, in pursuit of them.

I would say that impure motives would be correctly imputed to those who claim one set of motives, which actually pursuing other ends.

I am not sufficiently familiar with Holbrooke to speak to which category he falls into. But I think it worthwhile to avoid being sloppy about how we describe his shortcomings.

Well, strike the discussion of motives then, but Holbrooke has a poor record on East Timor and the Philippines.

Different topic. I am familiar with David Bentley Hart in other contexts ( arguing for both Christianity and universalism) , but was slightly surprised and pleased to see this piece in the NYT defending socialism. His sarcasm is sometimes a bit too much ( and a bit pompous) but I think he hits the target here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/opinion/sunday/socialism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

That is a good piece, Donald, and goes on getting better until its coruscating conclusion. I try to read most of the NYT every day, but missed this. Thank you for pointing it out.

Here's an interesting take on what legislation (as opposed to investigations) Congress should pursue as a result of the Mueller Report. That's on the merits of the suggested laws.

And from a political perspective, it could make for some interesting challenges. For example, it is currently illegal for a campaign to share things like polling data and campaign strategy with US PACs and other independent political action groups. But apparently it isn't illegal to share it with foreign governments or groups.

So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot? Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.

Or will they vote to make it illegal . . . even though their hero Trump did exactly that? Rock. Hard place.

Since when has the party of God, country, sexual purity, and anti-Communism been bothered by a little hypocrisy?

This, from Bentley Hart's NYT op-ed, writing of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:

(though, really, she comes across as someone who could look past a face of even the purest suet if she thought she glimpsed a healthy soul behind it).

I'll be stealing that.

And, yeah, re the term "socialism", America looks up its own ass and sees witches.

The senate will simply not vote on it, so no need to go on record. Problem solved from the GOP POV.
But I would not be surprised at all, should they start a new investigation (or 10) into alleged Dem collusion with foreign entities right before the next election.

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/04/29/Fox---Friends-fearmongers-about-migrants-They-go-into-the-interior-and-they-disappear-They/223583

Really? I thought the problem was that they DIDN'T melt into the fabric of American life.

The fabric of American life is a synthetic and probably flammable.

An "inaccurate refrain"

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/no-more-inaccurate-refrains

Why is the leftist MSM so politically correct about conservative filth?

I thought the problem was that they DIDN'T melt into the fabric of American life.

So?

When apprehensions of illegal immigrants were down, that was proof that Trump's approach was working. Now that they are up, that is proof that Trump's approach is working. If you're looking for consistency from Trump and his fans, you've come to the wrong store.

The Out-of-Towners finally get the upper hand. Soon, folks who live, work, and rent in American home towns will be priced out and herded into tent encampments or living in their Uber vehicles.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/marriott-to-take-on-airbnb-in-booming-home-rental-market/ar-BBWoLGt

America, the full of shit, needs to be revised.

Violently.

The Hometowners will be the sequel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzQC1uNWqYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjotXvRI0w

So which members of Congress will vote to continue to allow foreigners to act with respect to our elections in ways Americans cannot?

Democrats will/would. no Republicans will because doing so would be an admission that Trump did something wrong and that the Dems have a valid complaint.

and, well, we know how that goes.

"we know how that goes"

We must invoke Burke's Law to get to cleek's Law.

"Never ask a question unless you already know the answer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke%27s_Law_(1963_TV_series)

So many laws.

Deregulation is in order.

The whites of their ayes:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/04/the-white-minnesota-freak-out

Just wondering: Did anyone here watch "Occupied", the Norwegian series (two seasons, beginning in 2015)? Available on Netflix.

It's about a Russian coup in Norway. Apparently, Putin didn't like it much. A third season was announced, but not sure when it's happening.

I would love for people to watch it, and then discuss. Thanks.

Yemen death toll probably in the quarter million range.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/233000-have-died-in-the-war-on-yemen/

Sounds an unlikely premise, sapient:
Norway is occupied by Russia on behalf of the European Union, due to the fact that the newly elected environmental friendly Norwegian government has stopped the all important oil- and gas-production in the North Sea....

I would have thought that Putin would enjoy the concomitant rise in the price of gas rather a lot.

Putin doesn't wake up in the morning and say "Drill, baby, drill!"?

If Norway were to cease production overnight, Putin could sit back happily and count the extra money coming in for their oil and gas exports.

If we're considering bizarre scenarios, there'd be more chance of his sending military aid to Norway to fend off an EU takeover...

Clearly, the invasion would be a strategic move by Putin, to secure a supply of Trolls.

in case anyone needs a re-up on their frustration over the Mueller report.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/

yes, what Trump did definitely warrants impeachment. yes, what he did was likely criminal.

Remember this guy. Since his days in the Reagan Adminstration, he's called for the impeachment of EVERYONE, including the Presidential dogs.

No, not this time. Who da guessed? The number of fellatrixes, female and male, p and his thugs keep on retainer to keep Fein, Graham, and 60 million Americans in line has got to be legion.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unseemly-censurable-but-not-impeachable/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Fein

Why not savage, massive violence against the entire republican edifice?

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/04/29/the-truth-the-wohl-truth-and-everything-but-the-truth-the-jacob-wohl-story/

there are folks who love Trump because he's Trump. big loud obnoxious ass who says the quiet parts loud. he's their kind of fun. the porn stars and golden toilet are lagniappe, kind of a bonus.

and there are folks who don't love Trump, but who aren't particularly bothered by him, because tax cuts and deregulation. that's their understanding of what made and makes America great, and if he makes that happen they don't much care about the details.

next year we will see if those two camps, taken together, are approximately more than half of the people who show up to vote.

spend your money, your time, your vote, and your person if need be, to get in the way of that. and best of luck to all.

I'd say your second group is more accurately defined by "tax cuts for them". Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny. (The number who got at least a tiny cut is larger. But "tiny," as in unnoticable, is the operative word.) That larger group might like a tax cut. But as far as they can see, Trump didn't deliver for them.

But as far as they can see, Trump didn't deliver for them.

of course that's only relevant if they're looking. and the endless Cletus Safaris tell me a lot of people are in love with imaginary Trump and don't really care much about real life Trump.

Cletus Safaris. ObWi continues to enlarge my vocabulary in hitherto unimaginable ways.

"Which is important because the numbers who actually saw a tax cut are tiny"

This is crap. Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it. I didnt actually get much of a cut, some, not complaining.

It's always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it's a tiny unnoticeable amount.

It's always interesting, if you want to tax the lower income groups there is a huge objection due to the relative importance of that money to them. But give a tax cut and it's a tiny unnoticeable amount.

That depends on the numbers. What people like me usually object to are the stupid "flat tax" proposals that are trotted out every so often, though they seem to have been at least someone of a fad. You don't hear about them as much these days.

Long story short, what some people object to is taking the same percentage of everyone's income, no matter how large or small that income is, and saying it's "fair" simply because everyone pays the same percentage.

So, no, it's not always interesting.

somewhat, not someone.

No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.

This is crap

i got a $6000 tax bill.

now there's some crap.

Most of my family got this tiny tax cut you speak of, and they all noticed it.

So your family is well off. Glad to hear they are doing well -- that is, better than most.

No hsh, I have no idea what you personally object to. But anytime, any time, there is a proposal to raise taxes across the board that discussion ensues.

Well, you do, because I just told you.

But, again, it depends on the numbers. And if you think lower-income people already pay too much (particularly relative to higher-income people) you're going to object to an across-the-board tax increase, at least if it doesn't take the existing inequities into account.

If there were some dire fiscal circumstance, I'd probably accept a small increase at the bottom if there were a commensurate increase at the top, given the marginal utility of money, which is at the heart of the discussion.

In any case, don't pretend that you can't give a poorer person a meager tax cut, simply because they don't make much to begin with. Pretending, say, $50 over the course of year should make someone happy when Daddy Warbucks gets 10,000 times that much is what I think we're talking about.

"The Joint Committee on Taxation — Congress’s nonpartisan team of tax analysts — found that every income group would see a tax cut on average. So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank that was sharply critical of the law. In fact, that group went even further: In a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019."
Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut: Studies consistently find that the 2017 law cut taxes for most Americans. Most of them don’t buy it.

No one got $50. And no wj, most of my family are working poor/lower middle class.

Thanks, Marty, good to know. I just observe that national polling numbers suggest that your family is the exception. Of course, the polls could be off, for any of a variety of reasons....

Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut

Face It: I (Definitely) Didn't.

amazing thing about averages - they aren't universal.

instead, we got hit hard by the new caps on mortgage interest and state & local tax deductions.

whatever change we might have seen on our monthly pay stubs was more than swallowed by the loss of those deductions.

No one got $50.

I'm sure plenty of people got roughly that much in a tax cut. But the exact number's not really the issue (which is what the "say" is for in the sentence - a number pulled out of the air for the sake of argument). Maybe it's $10 or maybe it's $250. Whatever. The masters of the universe got the most out of it, as usual.

I'd love to read CharlesWT's link, but it's blocked.

I got a tax cut, but it's going to go away very rapidly as my kids age out of the doubled Child Tax Credit. Standard deduction obviated what used to be itemized deductions (more or less a break-even), but the personal exemption went away. First kid hits 17 next year, so a $2K jump right there. Bye-bye, tax cut. Hello, periodic and large tax increases.

I'd love to read CharlesWT's link, but it's blocked.

You may be able to see the article if you open the link in a private(FireFox) or incognito(Chrome) window.

Some folks got a tax cut, some folks' taxes went up. It depends on where you live and how much you make.

And all of the folks who got a little bump this year should make the most of it, because the tax cut blew a great big freaking hole in the federal budget. So all of the things the feds pay for, that all of those folks use, are going to go unfunded or underfunded.

Own goal.

Enjoy your tax cut!

I gave myself a noticeable tax cut for 2018, by the simple expedient of reducing my income substantially. Had I maintained my 2017 income (by aggressively pursuing new gigs) I'd certainly be in cleek's position.

What Marty will never get through his head is that his "working poor/lower middle class" relatives are getting ripped off by the rich, not by "welfare queens" or "immigrants". (To be fair, the richest man I know personally is an immigrant.) Marty will continue to support He, Trump's "(Republican) policies" no matter what, because "tax cuts". Also, anti-choice judges.

What galls me most is something I mentioned before: to turn the 1040 into a "postcard", Republicans made the IRS move a bunch of lines from it to separate "schedules". I had to file more separate pieces of paper (at least one of them in order to enter a single number that used to be a line item on the 1040) than I ever did before. The Republican "base" is a bunch of saps.

--TP

In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.

So, do Republicans lie when they proclaim that those other OECD countries are socialist hellholes from which "capital" and "rich people" flee to find refuge in the US?

--TP

Yes and no. They're not hellholes, are even socialist, but they have seen capital flight.

To the over-taxed US?

--TP

In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.

What do you mean by this? I only ask because I've seen people suggest that the US has a very progressive tax structure based on how much people at different income levels pay, rather than how the brackets are structured. In other words, because we have highly concentrated income, people at the top pay a lot more than people in the middle or at the bottom. But that would be the case even with a flat (not at all progressive!) tax structure, simply because of the concentration of income at the top.

"Since 2013, New World Wealth, a research outfit based in South Africa, has been tracking millionaire migrations by culling property records, visa programs, news media reports and information from travel agents and others who cater to the wealthy. In a global population of 15 million people each worth more than $1 million in net assets, nearly 100,000 changed their country of residence last year.
...
Equally surprising was the lack of change in the United States, where the arrival of a billionaire president did not seem to attract or repel millionaires. A net total of 9,000 millionaires migrated to the United States last year, but they represent a drop in the ocean of five million American millionaires."

The Millionaires Are Fleeing. Maybe You Should, Too.: (June 2, 2018)

That's one impressively misleading headline!

In fact, as the article makes plain, millionaires are NOT fleeing . . . from the US. From a couple of cited other countries, yes. And mostly, it appears, to Canada, Australia, and the UAE. But the US has a small (percentage wise) inflow of millionaires. So possibly, just possibly, the climate here is not so dire as some alarmists on the right would have us believe.

A bit dated, but probably not much has changed overall in the interim.

"Other countries have higher tax rates than the U.S. but manage to be less progressive overall. How can this be? The answer is that the rate structure alone doesn't necessarily tell you much about the progressivity of a country's tax system. The top rates kick in at much lower income levels in Europe than in the United States, making E.U. tax codes more regressive than ours."
Taxation, American Style: The U.S. tax code is more progressive and European than you think. (May 2012)

No matter how low taxes go, millionaires flee.

Not matter how high taxes go, millionaires seem to stay put.

So you were basing that on your memory of a single Reason article you read 7 years ago?

More or less... :)

You're now officially my favorite libertarian.

That was me. Not my usual device.

In spite of payroll taxes, the US has the most progressive income taxes of any of the OECD countries.

In spite of the last 40 years, I'm 22 years old.

No one got $50

If that's supposed to mean that everyone got more than that: they didn't. A few percent in each income group got a tax increase. That rises to about 30% of the lower income groups getting a tax increase by 2027.

But not to worry, at least the very rich will be even richer. And by the time the bad stuff happens - lots of poor people paying more tax, and the increased debt hurting the economy - Trump will be gone and you'll be able to blame a D president.

A pretty good back of envelope analysis if the 2018 tax cut.

If you are making the national average of about $60k, live someplace with low state and local taxes, and have a couple of kids you can claim, you probably saw about $2k.

Which is pretty nice.

Adjust as needed for all factors mentioned. If you're working poor or lower middle, you may have gotten a little bump, but probably not a number with a comma in it.

Balance that against the overall (R) program and see if you're ahead, or not.

I paid more this year, but it doesn't bug me all that much, because I generally don't bitch about paying taxes.

Enjoy your tax cut. You're welcome.

Republicans always favor lower taxes.
Republicans always favor lower wages.

Therefore, their perfect society is composed of a few very rich, and a mass of trolls who pay little, if any in the way of taxes, but only getting paid $3.25/hr. + tips.

Throw in a government that does nothing. Paradise.

A more up-to-date link.

"The world’s wealthy are increasingly on the move.

About 108,000 millionaires migrated across borders last year, a 14 percent increase from the prior year, and more than double the level in 2013, according to Johannesburg-based New World Wealth. Australia, U.S. and Canada are the top destinations, according to the research firm, while China and Russia are the biggest losers. The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons."
Millionaires Flee Their Homelands as Tensions Rise and Taxes Bite: Global wealth migration increased 14% last year, study finds (April 30, 2019)

A very good, non partisan article on the powers and limitations of the special prosecutor:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/should-special-prosecutors-like-mueller-have-more-power/

Up until now, a role largely shaped by the misdeeds of Nixon and gross overreach of Starr.

"The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons."

So the reduction in tax rates, regulatory cutbacks, and union busting in Great Britain beginning with the Thatcher era and continuing thru later conservative governance has done nothing to satisfy millionaires and billionaires and convince them to stay put?

In America, William Howard Taft proposed federal and individual income taxes, if I have my history right.

Two percent for the individual tax rate.

That rose to above 90% at the high marginal rate, with other marginal rates following along and state and local taxes taxes rose as well, and I'd like to see a graph of the millions of millionaires since then who fled the country only to miss the greatest income- and wealth-producing engine ... America ... the world has ever seen over the next 100-plus years.

You could lower the high marginal rate to 0.5% percent or institute a flat tax and the sniveling from the rich, and its enabling by conservative political filth will show not one iota of abatement.

Norquist, Mulvaney, Moore, Cain and the rest of em will never shut the fuck up about their tax "burden."

p will still hide his income tax returns because he will still be paying nothing, probably by criminal means.

Pig shit.

Fuck off.

The U.K. saw around 3,000 millionaires depart last year with Brexit and taxation cited as possible reasons.

Of course, Brexit might well be a bigger deal than taxation. Especially as it is the new issue, whereas taxation has been much as it is now for some time. Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.

"Bit hard to tell with out disaggregating the two.:

I am absolutely certain the data completely supports my POV. No need to sort it out.

“We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
- Barr, yesterday, moaning about how unfairly his client has been treated

also yesterday, NYT:
The Trump team’s efforts to draw attention to the Bidens’ work in Ukraine, which is already yielding coverage in conservative media, has been led partly by Rudolph W. Giuliani, who served as a lawyer for Mr. Trump in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Giuliani’s involvement raises questions about whether Mr. Trump is endorsing an effort to push a foreign government to proceed with a case that could hurt a political opponent at home.

ht/BJ

Barr is a slippery, quibbling fncker even when responding to Republican questioning:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/ben-sasse-barr-hearing-explains-trump-exoneration.html

Or as Colbert put it, a steaming pile of snit.

He hasn’t been long in post, but Barr must already be a contender for the worst AG is history.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/william-barr-doj-obamacare-brief-partisan-hack.html

“We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”
- Barr, yesterday

"Lock her up!"

Good times.

What does everybody think about Comey's piece in today's NYT?

Personally, I thought it an exact description, in every particular, of the Trump effect on those around him, although obviously self-serving. I also found myself wishing he hadn't used the soul-devouring metaphor because he would be accused of over-dramatising, then second-thought that anybody accusing him of over-dramatising wouldn't agree with his characterisation anyway, so it doesn't matter. What think the ObWitterati?

I think that most of those around Trump (those who have been appointed by him) were already soulless.

GFtNC: It had a creepy sort of authenticity.

I could see the same happening to me discussing Fed interest rate policy over tequila shooters with Charles WT.

1. Millionaire emigration and capital flight are two different things.

2. I did not get a tax cut, AFAICT, mostly because of the new limit on SALT deductions, an act of pure spite, IMO, on the part of the GOP.

I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states.

This is amusing
http://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/02/william-barr-plays-devils-advocate/

"I think MA should put a tax on college students from red states."

Only the ones that they don't reprogram into the VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.

So a huge increase in tuition for Harvard MBAs. Free tuition for Queer Studies majors.

a basic, yes/no question:

did Barr actually read the damned report?

a basic, yes/no question:

did Barr actually read the damned report?

No. It would have been a waste of his time, which was much better spent preparing prevarication.

Witters has lost any respect for Barr, too:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/bill-barrs-performance-was-catastrophic/588574/

I think controlling our borders is just ducky, but why control them only one way? Why not charge an arm and a leg to leave?

More on Ben Wittes' contrition here.

The comments to this entry are closed.