Octopus Overlords

Zarathud wrote:There's a public demand to counter terrorists. The intel community comes up with their best guess on who to worry about (which is likely often wrong given the immense task).

While the procedure sucks, not acting on the no-fly list is insane. If you have a thing saying the government has cause to we wary of you simply flying, you shouldn't have access to guns or bomb materials.

But you're a lawyer, you have to know that's crazy talk. You can't take away a right the Supreme Court says exists through a secret, unappealable process. I agree it would be nice to keep guns and bombs away from terrorists - but it's not something where we should just say any step is a good step.

GreenGoo wrote:

stessier wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:1) No privacy. She's not alone in this. Fuck anyone of this opinion. In her defense, an awful lot of people seem to be ok with this. Fuck them too.
2) It's not unreasonable to take away guns from people who are so scary we don't let them on planes. I'm ok with this position.
3) I'd be ok with 2) if No Fly lists were anything but a knee jerk feel good pile of bullshit. But they're not, so you get to keep your guns. No Fly lists are awful, but the entirety of DHS post 9/11 is awful, so this is hardly a Clinton issue.

So you got me with 1) She can go to hell on that one (along with 90% of the rest of the candidates). The rest is even less specific to Clinton.

I'm curious why you are okay with 2 but not 3. Seems a little confusing. If the No Fly lists were anything close to a reasonable and transparent look at who we let fly, you could probably persuade me. As they stand - being completely secret with no way to find out even why you are on it, no way.

2) only makes sense if No Fly lists are managed competently. As Rip points out, they aren't. They are complete garbage. I'm not going to withhold rights from citizens because someone shows up on a list that appears to be completely random in nature.

*IF* I could trust a No Fly list to be a valid list of people who are not allowed on a plane for good reason, keeping guns out of their hands might make sense.

It sounds like we're on the same wavelength. Might be a communication issue.

Yeah, it's clear here but no matter how I read you first post, it doesn't make sense. Likely my issue - it's been a long day.

Zarathud wrote:There's a public demand to counter terrorists. The intel community comes up with their best guess on who to worry about (which is likely often wrong given the immense task).

While the procedure sucks, not acting on the no-fly list is insane. If you have a thing saying the government has cause to we wary of you simply flying, you shouldn't have access to guns or bomb materials.

You realize that bomb making materials are available at the hardware store...right?

I like how you hotlink right to DHS so they can come here and see what we're talking about. Awesome.

I would just like to say that I am stridently opposed to any attempt to violently overthrow the constitution or government of the United States.

Odd, the PM you sent me earlier with the subject line "Hey, wanna help me violently overthrow the constitution or government of the United States?" made me think something else entirely.

stessier wrote: Yeah, it's clear here but no matter how I read you first post, it doesn't make sense. Likely my issue - it's been a long day.

No it's not your fault, I state that I support No Fly list members having their gun rights removed, then state the No Fly list is garbage. It's not clear, but I did it intentionally because that's the order things were in Rip's post, but also because I thought it was a "clever" way of expressing my opinion. Whoops.

hepcat wrote:Odd, the PM you sent me earlier with the subject line "Hey, wanna help me violently overthrow the constitution or government of the United States?" made me think something else entirely.

So...do you want to do that, citizen? Don't worry, we're alone here, so you can be candid.

Smoove_B wrote:I like how you hotlink right to DHS so they can come here and see what we're talking about. Awesome.

Because they are so obviously on their toes.

El Guapo wrote:

hepcat wrote:Odd, the PM you sent me earlier with the subject line "Hey, wanna help me violently overthrow the constitution or government of the United States?" made me think something else entirely.

So...do you want to do that, citizen? Don't worry, we're alone here, so you can be candid.

I was with you until your manifesto veered off into a 12 page diatribe on the lack of any really funny tv sitcoms based on the exploits of German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (or, as you refer to him on page 193: The Hitler of Hilarity) and a talking monkey. I also thought your demands that tweed be outlawed in your new world order was a touch odd.

El Guapo wrote:

hepcat wrote:Odd, the PM you sent me earlier with the subject line "Hey, wanna help me violently overthrow the constitution or government of the United States?" made me think something else entirely.

So...do you want to do that, citizen? Don't worry, we're alone here, so you can be candid.

The Computer is Your Friend. You want the Computer to be Happy, right? All you need to do is confess, just a little, and Friend Computer will be so Happy. And get you any help necessary. You do want help, don't you, citizen? Speak clearly. Only Commie Mutant Terrorists stutter.

Rip wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:I like how you hotlink right to DHS so they can come here and see what we're talking about. Awesome.

Because they are so obviously on their toes.

even children can follow a trail if you point it out to them.

Time for a new HRC photo (Rip's been slacking off of late).

At one point, the host suggested that Democrats had not courted gun owners who supported further regulations on their sale and use.

"I do think we don't have the right approach to it," Ms Clinton said of political efforts to place restrictions on guns in the US. "We do need to reach out to responsible gun owners and say we can do more to prevent as many deaths as possible".

The host in question is Seth Meyers, who chatted with Clinton on topics such as Donald Trump and gun control.

Rip wrote:

"I ate his privacy with some fava beans and a nice chianti."

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm to meet with her or other State Department officials after one of the firm's investors asked Chelsea Clinton's husband for help setting up such contacts, according to the most recently released Clinton emails.

The lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals Inc. came while Clinton — now the leading Democratic presidential candidate — was advocating for an Obama administration push to win Senate approval for a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.

Clinton ordered a senior State Department official in August 2012 to look into the request. Her action came three months after an investor in the mining firm emailed Marc Mezvinsky, Chelsea Clinton's husband and a partner in Eaglevale Partners LP, a New York hedge fund, asking for his help in setting up State Department contacts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStor ... w-35656829

I can't possibly see Trump using his political power to forward his or his relatives' business interests. I'd vote for him ALL DAY over Hillary.

I know I'm supposed to care, but I'd need to have strong feelings one way or another on the actual matter before I do. I'd need to know that the law is a poor one before I cared overly much about what her motivation was for promoting it.

My days of believing Politicians aren't out for themselves died in the early 2000's (yes, I hung on for a long time). Now I just care if they are doing something contrary to something I'm pro- or con- on.

Buffet backs tax plan:

With Warren Buffett’s blessing, Hillary Clinton said Wednesday she would go beyond what President Barack Obama has proposed and push for a tax system that ensures the wealthiest Americans pay higher rates than middle-class households.

Mrs. Clinton gave no details during her appearance with the Berkshire Hathaway chairman at a campaign rally. But her pledge tracks the populist tone she has struck in vying for the presidential nomination of a Democratic Party that has moved left on the issue of income inequality.
...
“The Buffett Rule says that millionaires should pay at least 30% income-tax rates…and I want to go even further,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience of about 800 people in an Omaha auditorium. “I want to be the president of the struggling, the striving and the successful.”

As Mr. Buffett introduced Mrs. Clinton, he outlined statistics showing that the richest 400 Americans saw their incomes rise sevenfold between 1992 and 2012, the most recent year IRS data were available. During that period, their average tax rate dropped by about one-third, he said.
...
Mr. Buffett avoided some of the fiery rhetoric that Mr. Sanders has employed in drawing large crowds unhappy about sluggish wage growth. While Mr. Sanders lampoons the “cocky billionaire class,” Mr. Buffett said wealthy Americans are “decent people” who have created jobs and “come up with products that you and I like. They are good citizens.” He added, though, that “the game has been stacked in their direction. And that’s the primary reason that I’m going to be so delighted when Secretary Clinton takes the oath of office.”

If Mr. Buffet jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?

In all seriousness, I'd prefer less appealing to authority and more explaining why it's a good idea.

For the record I often like the things Buffet says and can agree with him on some.

GreenGoo wrote:If Mr. Buffet jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?

In all seriousness, I'd prefer less appealing to authority and more explaining why it's a good idea.

Increasing taxes on the super rich and lessening the burden on what's left of the middle class sounds like a capital idea!

Jaymann wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:If Mr. Buffet jumped off a bridge, would you follow him?

In all seriousness, I'd prefer less appealing to authority and more explaining why it's a good idea.

Increasing taxes on the super rich and lessening the burden on what's left of the middle class sounds like a capital idea!

It is until you realize the really super rich don't have much income. They have mountains of assets but the income is trivial and can be adjusted to meet tax needs. These guys have yachts and jets on the company dime and write of expensive vacations by having "meetings" with other whales on how to milk the sheeples easiest.

Standard investments produce income that can be taxed.

The super duper mega rich might grow their wealth in interesting offshore ways, but investments of capital result in return on that capital, and that can be taxed.

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether growth of wealth can be taxed or not. It can.

Tax laws are often based on how much cash they will generate. It's not "make a law and hope for the best" it's "there is money here and we want some of it, make the law/tax meet the requirements for getting it done".

No one in charge wants to tax people because they have fancy cars or nice watches. That's a non-starter to tax discussion.

The only people who think income tax is limited to pay cheques are laypeople, and luckily they aren't in charge of the tax system.

GreenGoo wrote:Standard investments produce income that can be taxed.

The super duper mega rich might grow their wealth in interesting offshore ways, but investments of capital result in return on that capital, and that can be taxed.

I'm not going to get into an argument over whether growth of wealth can be taxed or not. It can.

Tax laws are often based on how much cash they will generate. It's not "make a law and hope for the best" it's "there is money here and we want some of it, make the law/tax meet the requirements for getting it done".

No one in charge wants to tax people because they have fancy cars or nice watches. That's a non-starter to tax discussion.

The only people who think income tax is limited to pay cheques are laypeople, and luckily they aren't in charge of the tax system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/410842/

Never mind. Tired. Annoyed. Unimpressed.

edit: That has got to be the least informative article on tax evasion I have ever read, which, admittedly, is not a lot.

I get that he's a sociologist and that his interest is anthropological in nature, but holy crap Rip, could you not choose to cite articles that spend 2 paragraphs talking about how the author is like another famed sociologist in his "going native" approach, or how making a game out of banging each others' wives was not a point of interest?

Seriously, at it's most in-depth (which admittedly is just a teaser for his new book coming up), the article tells us that wealthy people put their wealth in off shore accounts and trusts to make them untouchable.

That's hardly news to me, so I would *hope* Mr. Buffet is aware. Unless you're suggesting that this is something that Mr. Buffet just never thought about before suggesting taxing them. Are you Rip? Are you suggesting that Warren (if I might call him that) just never really thought out his opinion on this subject and once presented with your compelling article would simple sigh and shake his head in resignation, marveling at how clever the super rich are and that he wishes he had thought of it?

Now there's always the possibility that Warren is just playing for the cameras, but in my limited experience, that's the exact opposite of what he normally does. He's the exact opposite of Trump in fact.

I guess my point is that linking to an article that tells me rich people hide their money and that's the entire extent of details presented, is not compelling. Coffee drinking smiley or not.

Also I'm mildly pissed that I had to read the damn article to find out it was of limited (if I'm generous) value.

I am curious if my impression coincides with how other people view the article.

Rip wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/410842/

You know nothing, Rip Snow.

A secret code of signets and pocket watches? Someone has been creating their own mythology.

Zarathud wrote:

Rip wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... nt/410842/

You know nothing, Rip Snow.

A secret code of signets and pocket watches? Someone has been creating their own mythology.

I know you think that.....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... heir-money

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/ ... -tax-haven

Next you're going to tell President Obama how to do his job, too.

Another article showing how to avoid taxes if you have a huge net worth.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... y-the-rich

The true effective rate for multimillionaires is actually far lower than that indicated by official government statistics. That’s because those figures fail to include the additional income that’s generated by many sophisticated tax-avoidance strategies. Several of those techniques involve some variation of complicated borrowings that never get repaid, netting the beneficiaries hundreds of millions in tax-free cash. From 2003 to 2008, for example, Los Angeles Dodgers owner and real estate developer Frank H. McCourt Jr. paid no federal or state regular income taxes, as stated in court records dug up by the Los Angeles Times. Developers such as McCourt, according to a declaration in his divorce proceeding, “typically fund their lifestyle through lines of credit and loan proceeds secured by their assets while paying little or no personal income taxes.” A spokesman for McCourt said he availed himself of a tax code provision at the time that permitted purchasers of sports franchises to defer income taxes.

For those who can afford a shrewd accountant or attorney, our era is rife with opportunities to avoid—or at least defer—tax bills, according to tax specialists and public records. It’s limited only by the boundaries of taste, creativity, and the ability to understand some very complex shelters. Here’s a look at some of them:

Zarathud does this for a living. I have no idea if he's any good at it, or whether he agrees with you or not, Rip. I do hope he'd have some interesting opinions that he'd share with us.

And I swear to god, if you link to another article that tells us the Rich are hiding their money in off shore accounts I'm gonna put you in a corner for a week. We get that. That's the whole freakin' point of changing tax laws to get access to some of it.

Put Rip in the socialist corner.

It's not like Trump is going to raise the top tax rates. Or curb this year's $700 billion in unfunded Republican tax cuts.

“We are doing damage to the fiscal health of the country by borrowing this mind-boggling amount at a time when the debt is so high,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan anti-debt nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It’s absolutely at odds with the priority Republicans are making — the debt — when they’re campaigning, and with the Republican budget that was passed out of the House.”

For the GOP presidential candidates, the $18 trillion national debt remains a central campaign talking point. But after years of relative fiscal austerity, including enactment of relatively modest spending rollbacks, GOP lawmakers are steaming toward passing a mammoth $680 billion tax package without offsets.

The same week that the Federal Reserve thinks the American economy is strong enough to raise interest rates, the GOP is getting their "pro-growth" tax cuts. Irony or madness, your choice.

But the real problem is a secret cabal of tax advisors, like Rip says.

GreenGoo wrote:Zarathud does this for a living. I have no idea if he's any good at it, or whether he agrees with you or not, Rip. I do hope he'd have some interesting opinions that he'd share with us.

And I swear to god, if you link to another article that tells us the Rich are hiding their money in off shore accounts I'm gonna put you in a corner for a week. We get that. That's the whole freakin' point of changing tax laws to get access to some of it.

Exactly. They do this because the laws currently allow them to. That's the point in changing laws.

Zarathud wrote:

Put Rip in the socialist corner.

It's not like Trump is going to raise the top tax rates. Or curb this year's $700 billion in unfunded Republican tax cuts.

“We are doing damage to the fiscal health of the country by borrowing this mind-boggling amount at a time when the debt is so high,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan anti-debt nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “It’s absolutely at odds with the priority Republicans are making — the debt — when they’re campaigning, and with the Republican budget that was passed out of the House.”

For the GOP presidential candidates, the $18 trillion national debt remains a central campaign talking point. But after years of relative fiscal austerity, including enactment of relatively modest spending rollbacks, GOP lawmakers are steaming toward passing a mammoth $680 billion tax package without offsets.

The same week that the Federal Reserve thinks the American economy is strong enough to raise interest rates, the GOP is getting their "pro-growth" tax cuts. Irony or madness, your choice.

But the real problem is a secret cabal of tax advisors, like Rip says.

The madness is they are getting tax cuts and spending like a drunken sailor.

Not to worry, I'm not out celebrating it. I am lamenting it just like most actual conservatives.

Psst. Zarathud is the man behind the curtain. Of course he's gonna deny it!

Dilbert from 2011 had this to say:

I wish my life was that interesting, Rip.

Remember the good old days when it was Rush Limbaugh and later Fox News who were at the head of decrying Clinton conspiracies.



While I won't go there and I can only imagine this sort of thing happens all of the time as rank and file political operatives need careers, it's still ugly. Conspiracy? Not in so many words. Likely unspoken cronyism (For my inability to find the right word political back scratching when you do have the qualifications) that does things like make the primaries all but useless? I don't doubt it.

Soon Rip will be corrupted.

LordMortis wrote:Likely unspoken cronyism (For my inability to find the right word political back scratching when you do have the qualifications)

It's called "networking" these days. Which is shorthand for the old adage of, "it's not what you know, it's who you know".

The only one that really strikes me is the one that's the nephew. Otherwise, I'd expect people in very politically oriented positions to have worked on campaigns. I'm guessing that you'd probably find a number of people who worked on Obama or Kerry's campaigns, too.

(Also, I think Hillary Clinton worked on the Hillary Clinton for President and the Clinton Gore campaigns, as well)