Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, November 20, 2017

OTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in

A high-ranking official in Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s office had to pay a price for allowing others to avoid having to pay the price of admission last year to a Cubs World Series game at Wrigley Field, newly obtained records show.

Mike Anton, a deputy chief with the sheriff’s police who makes about $120,000 a year, was suspended for 10 days for giving security IDs to two people so they could get in to a 2016 Cubs World Series game, the records show.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 20, 2017 at 08:01 AM | 1172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off-topic, politics, world series

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 12 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
   201. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5579416)
Seriously, Clapper, I disagree with you a lot, but I generally respect your arguments.


Why? He's a spin-troll for absolutely anything that gets him "conservative judges." He'll fondly support pedophiles for office if it gets him a SCOTUS that will put women back in corsets and chains.
   202. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:25 PM (#5579419)
What good fortune that a retard like Trump manages to do all those things successfully

I suppose it is your dream to not pay people and then litigate them into submission?
   203. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5579423)
I'm merely questioning this strange new insistence on the part of the lefties here that rich, successful people are accumulating and keeping vast amounts of wealth while being morons, retards, or literally dumber than a pre-schooler.


You might want to talk to all the various conservatives - many in his own administration - that keep calling GOP President Trump a moron. It is not just people here calling him that. But please continue your obeisance to the mighty dollar.
   204. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5579426)
I suppose it is your dream to not pay people and then litigate them into submission?


Lawyers are basically the equivalent of mafioso thugs for the wealthy.
   205. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5579427)
You realize that you have to hire, pay, and actually LISTEN to the advice of those dickish attorneys, right?


There's just too much fun here to unpack.

Strange how being really rich and having access to all those dickish attorneys hasn't helped countless other people from losing their fortunes due to their own stupidity.


Such as?

Man, that Trump just keeps getting lucky!


Like the man says, when you're rich you can do anything.

Despite being a moron that's dumber than a pre-schooler (Madvillain's words), he just can't lose!


I'm sticking with kindergartner -- and dumb as, not dumber than.
   206. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5579428)
Seriously, Clapper, I disagree with you a lot, but I generally respect your arguments. This "yearbook authenticity" one, however, is incredibly weak.
Regardless of political tilt, why in the world would we give that yearbook the benefit of the doubt? Producing "evidence" but not allowing it to be examined is a pretty chickenshit thing to do.
   207. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5579431)

Explain why the Rolling Stones continued making new records well into the 90s...
At first glance, I thought that said "well into their 90s"
   208. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5579433)
At first glance, I thought that said "well into their 90s"


There's a non-zero chance we'll get there eventually...
   209. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5579434)
At first glance, I thought that said "well into their 90s"



There's a non-zero chance we'll get there eventually...


I was just gonna say...
   210. zack Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM (#5579436)
Does anyone who's not a board member for Verizon, Spectrum or Comcast want to remove net neutrality? Does anyone who actually uses the internet think this is a good thing?
   211. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5579437)
People who continue to strive after 25m aren't doing it for their children, idiot.


Interested to know the basis for your authoritative statements. Lots of wealthy friends in lower-middle class Atlanta suburbs?

As one of the few people in this thread with actual experience with this sort of thing, I’d like to think I have more insight than someone gazing with jealous anger toward Buckhead.

Ensuring the comfort of your children is the single strongest motivating factor for the rich. You might take my dads flavor of it “I’ll pay for all your fancy schools and help you with the down payment on your first house, but after that you’re on your own and mom and me are flying first class on a ton of vacations.” But he thought true inherited wealth (as opposed to wealth filtered through education and credentialed privilege) was corrosive. Other people literally want to drop a 10M pillow below their children in case they fall, and if that’s their choice we shouldn’t use tax policy to stop them. It’s just jealous revenge on the rich. That money has already been taxed once.

Being rich isn’t that fun because of the way your mind normalizes to context. Providing for your family’s security, on the other hand, is deeply satisfying.

   212. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:37 PM (#5579439)
Regardless of political tilt, why in the world would we give that yearbook the benefit of the doubt? Producing "evidence" but not allowing it to be examined is a pretty chickenshit thing to do.


Probably because it tracks with the stories presented by 8 other women, together with -- what -- about 50 other people who have relayed stories of Roy Moore, 30something ADA with a thing for HS girls.

The evidentiary rules in the court of public opinion tend to be looser on the matter of what corroborating evidence is allowed.
   213. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:37 PM (#5579441)
Does anyone who's not a board member for Verizon, Spectrum or Comcast want to remove net neutrality? Does anyone who actually uses the internet think this is a good thing?


The usual cadre of tech-ignorant glibertarians will surely regale you with assurances of all the brilliant innovations you'll have access to once the poor ISPs are relieved of the burden of offering you the entire internet at one low price. Innovation!
   214. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:39 PM (#5579443)
211

Being rich isn’t that fun because of the way your mind normalizes to context.


"Roosevelt is a fool! What good does the FDIC do? It only covers your first hundred thousand!" -- multimillionaire Ogden Mills Reid, owner and publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, 1936
   215. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5579445)
Does anyone who's not a board member for Verizon, Spectrum or Comcast want to remove net neutrality? Does anyone who actually uses the internet think this is a good thing?

Libertarians like David.
   216. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5579448)
That money has already been taxed once.


So has the money spent on a 6 pack of Schlitz...
   217. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5579449)
As one of the few people in this thread with actual experience with this sort of thing

If only I could monetize this current eye-roll.
   218. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5579450)
That money has already been taxed once.


That money has probably been taxed dozens of times as it flits from owner to owner. And that's what's happening here as well.
   219. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5579451)
As one of the few people in this thread with actual experience with this sort of thing

If only I could monetize this current eye-roll.


You still wouldn't pay as much in taxes as Ray!
   220. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5579454)

And no, Ray, there is no "social" good in giving Eric Trump a cushion to make sure he's never held to account for his own lack of merit as a human being.
Sure there is. Keeps him off the welfare rolls.
   221. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM (#5579457)
People who continue to strive after 25m aren't doing it for their children, idiot.

Ensuring the comfort of your children is the single strongest motivating factor for the rich. You might take my dads flavor of it “I’ll pay for all your fancy schools and help you with the down payment on your first house, but after that you’re on your own and mom and me are flying first class on a ton of vacations.” But he thought true inherited wealth (as opposed to wealth filtered through education and credentialed privilege) was corrosive. Other people literally want to drop a 10M pillow below their children in case they fall, and if that’s their choice we shouldn’t use tax policy to stop them. It’s just jealous revenge on the rich. That money has already been taxed once.

Being rich isn’t that fun because of the way your mind normalizes to context. Providing for your family’s security, on the other hand, is deeply satisfying.


Man, that security blanket must be made out of platinum-studded caviar or something, if it takes more than $25,000,000 to buy it.
   222. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:49 PM (#5579458)
Is that Clapper who changed his name to a bunch of periods? Anyway, I will say there is value in providing your children with a head start (this is usually a big advantage to having wealthy parents while they're still alive, too). But after a certain point, it's no longer giving them a good boost but enabling them to be lazy. Just throwing something out there, I'd be in favor of marginal estate tax rates of:
0-$1 million: 0%
$1 million - $5 million: 50%
$5 million - $10 million: 75%
$10 million and above: 95%

Maybe increase the thresh holds a bit if they have more children, but that's the general idea. That's enough to comfortably set up ones heirs, but for the very rich, incentives them to use money while they're still alive.
   223. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5579460)
And no, Ray, there is no "social" good in giving Eric Trump a cushion to make sure he's never held to account for his own lack of merit as a human being.
Sure there is. Keeps him off the welfare rolls.


Allegedly.

Absent tax returns but coupled with various Trump business activities and charitable "endeavors", I think the best we can say is that it probably does... I would say that we also need to caveat "welfare rolls" as being limited to specific TANF recipients
   224. dlf Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5579463)
That money has already been taxed once.


There are arguments pro and con regarding the estate tax, but this one is silly. When the seeds are bought by the farmer there is a tax paid ... when the wheat is sold to be turned into flour there is a tax paid ... when the flour is sold to be turned into bread ... the bread into a sandwich. At every exchange, there is the possibility (and usually the likelihood) of a tax; the exchange from deceased to heir isn't structurally different.

And even beyond that, the appreciation of the assets - which is virtually always a significant portion of a taxable estate - has NOT already been taxed.

Edit: cokes, etc.
   225. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5579465)
Charlie Rose fired by CBS.
   226. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5579466)
This statement is very wrong, morally, and analytically. It looks at the wrong end of the equation. Parents who are invested in their families work very hard to leave their children wealth, or at least to make wealth in order to put their children in a position to succeed in life. That should be incentivized and rewarded. It's a social good.

Even if we were to grant you this argument - which we won't; you don't understand "social good" - but even if we were to grant it, it doesn't dispute or deny the point you're replying to. Neither Donald Trump nor his children will have done anything to deserve the riches they did and will inherit.


So what? You're looking at the wrong end. *The parents* deserve to be able to send their riches to their children.

The rest is just your spite and your warped view of "fairness."
   227. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5579467)
And no, Ray, there is no "social" good in giving Eric Trump a cushion to make sure he's never held to account for his own lack of merit as a human being.

Sure there is. Keeps him off the welfare rolls.

There is that, but even in Johnnie Tillmon's wildest dreams a trust fund that gave him $100,000 a year might accomplish this noble purpose.
   228. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5579469)
And no, Ray, there is no "social" good in giving Eric Trump a cushion to make sure he's never held to account for his own lack of merit as a human being.

Sure there is. Keeps him off the welfare rolls.
If there was ever a rich family that would find a way to also get public assisstance, I'd bet on the Trumps.
   229. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5579470)
Looks like the TDS is in full peacock spreading mode today.
   230. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5579471)
Interested to know the basis for your authoritative statements.


Back at you. And no personal anecdotes don't count as actual evidence. I think everyone thinks there should be an amount which can be gifted to one's heirs, but past that I think the inheritance tax should be high.

You want to suggest there is a strong negative social value to doing so? Go for it. I am going to want actual evidence of it though.
   231. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5579472)
Is that Clapper who changed his name to a bunch of periods?

'zop
   232. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5579473)
There are arguments pro and con regarding the estate tax, but this one is silly. When the seeds are bought by the farmer there is a tax paid ... when the wheat is sold to be turned into flour there is a tax paid ... when the flour is sold to be turned into bread ... the bread into a sandwich. At every exchange, there is the possibility (and usually the likelihood) of a tax; the exchange from deceased to heir isn't structurally different.

And even beyond that, the appreciation of the assets - which is virtually always a significant portion of a taxable estate - has NOT already been taxed.


Golly, if I can't trust an alleged Rockefeller to explain what's fair and just i/r/t the tax code at levels beyond my means then I don't know who to trust.
   233. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:56 PM (#5579474)
That’s not what they mean by “gobble gobble gobble” this week Ray.
   234. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5579477)
So what? You're looking at the wrong end. *The parents* deserve to be able to send their riches to their children.


"Deserve's got nothin' to do with it"
   235. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5579480)
So what? You're looking at the wrong end. *The parents* deserve to be able to send their riches to their children.


They are free do so - and there are a myriad of ways that they can do so.

We're not talking about the parents... we're talking about their estates; the financial instrument remaining after they pass.
   236. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5579481)
So what? You're looking at the wrong end. *The parents* deserve to be able to send their riches to their children.

The rest is just your spite and your warped view of "fairness."
I "deserve" to keep every penny I make. However, I also expect the government to provide roads, national defense, police and fire protection, etc., and those things cost money. And as a society, it makes sense to tax those who have more because they have more for the government to protect.
   237. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:06 PM (#5579482)
Now here's something that should get bipartisan support all across the non-RussianBot spectrum:

D.C. leaders want to rename the street in front of the Russian Embassy after an assassinated, anti-Putin dissident
The D.C. Council is considering legislation that would change the name of the Northwest Washington street where the Russian Embassy is located to honor Boris Nemtsov, a prominent Russian opposition leader who was assassinated in Moscow in 2015.

If the legislation is approved, the block of Wisconsin Avenue between Edmonds and Davis streets would be called “Boris Nemtsov Plaza.” The new name would appear under the existing Wisconsin Avenue street sign, although no addresses on that designated block would change.

Ward 3 council member Mary M. Cheh (D) introduced the legislation and said the sign would commemorate the leader of Russia’s pro-Democracy opposition and serve as a reminder of America’s democratic values. She said the Russian Embassy does not have a say in whether the street name is changed.

“The man was assassinated, and he was someone fighting for democracy in Russia, and he is a hero,” Cheh said. “But, of course, he is not being treated as a hero in Russia.”

Cheh said she was approached by members of the Senate about changing the street name. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is the original sponsor of Senate legislation that would change the name in honor of Nemtsov. That legislation hasn’t moved in the Senate, so she said senators approached her about getting the local legislation passed instead. Rubio is one of nine Republican and Democratic senators listed as sponsors of the bill. Others include Sens. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The federal government has the power to pass legislation to change a street name in the nation’s capital and also can vote to overturn legislation passed by the D.C. government...

But somehow I doubt they'd try it on this one.....
   238. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:11 PM (#5579484)
Charlie Rose fired by CBS.


Ridiculous overkill. No one can even make out his genitals in that poorly-lit 8-watt studio of his.
   239. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5579486)
1) My personal family experience is not relevant, but my experience dealing with dozens (hundreds) of similarly situated people is. Permitting people to ensure that their children are secure (and yes, Andy, with the lifestyle they’ve grown accustomed to) is a powerful incentive for talented people to generate wealth, if not THE most powerful incentive.

2) Why single out inherited wealth? Why isn’t it taxable if a parent pays for your education or buys a consummable for your use. I live in an home owned by my family (third generation!) and pay “rent” on it. That implied income is totally nontaxable, which is bizarre. When my dad bought me a car in college, nontaxable. Etc etc. But inheritance is different? Why have the huge “gift” exemption which is really just a way for folks to sidestep the estate tax? What is so offensive about inherited wealth so as to tax it to encourage wasteful consumption while the parent is alive (especially of higher education, where you’re incentivizing rich kids to take the spot of other students who’d actually want to be there).

3) Why do we step up basis when assets are inherited? That’s the craziest provision of all, especially given the run-up in real estate prices in the coasts over the last 30 years. Everyone’s parents are stuck holding onto real estate till death so that their kids can sell post step-up and avoid paying tax on gain which can be like 80%+ of current value (I think my parents basis in their home is like 5% of current value, which is just laughable).

4) if you kill inherited wealth, you just killed every industry that pays below-market salaries and relies upon independently wealthy talent. It would be the final coup de grace for journalism, which is a haven for trusties. The arts? Fugeddaboudit.

   240. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5579488)
We must continue to coddle the trust fund losers with no marketable skills because else we will not have bad modern art? Um... Okay?
   241. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5579489)
Internet debating: identify the least important point your opponent made, rebut it, pretend you rebutted the strong points.
   242. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5579490)
Explain why the Rolling Stones continued making new records well into the 90s...

Come on. I know that Keith Richards looks bad, but he is only 73.



Partial Coke to TDF
   243. BDC Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5579493)
I'm not sure about the moral arguments regarding laziness or incentive, but I know that inheritance taxes are a check on the growth of aristocracies. Some sorts of redistribution are socially good. Before our right-wingers faint dead away onto their couches, I'll just point out that not even they would likely be in favor of primogeniture, which seemed a natural system in many places (including colonial America) not too many lifetimes ago. Untaxed inheritance allows for a greater and greater concentration of wealth in a few families, and primogeniture concentrates that wealth still further; obviously at some point we've decided as a society that absolute freedom of concentration is unwise.

From a purely practical point of view, aristocracies are murderously despised wherever they exist, and the more despised the more they concentrate wealth and power. The US right always thinks that a new social program is one step toward Cuba or Venezuela, but Cuba and Venezuela didn't get where they are via creeping socialism; they got there by having obscene aristocracies. As with revolutionary eastern Europe, France, Ireland, China, Vietnam, the colonial world in general …

Now, taking a little more or a little less of an estate is unlikely to turn the United States into Venezuela one way or the other. But we should be wary of the argument that unchecked inequality of wealth is always a great idea because ####### it, I worked for that dough.
   244. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5579495)
in that poorly-lit 8-watt studio of his.

I don't like talk shows anyhow, but this was additionally irritating even for five-minute clips I might watch randomly.
   245. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5579496)

#239

1) The plural of anecdote is not data.
2) All income should be taxed, but fixing the entire tax code is a pretty broad topic. So let's stick with inheritance taxes.
3) Why do we step down for capital gains?
4) So you think the market is broken and the only way to fix it is allow large inheritances? Um, ok.
   246. GordonShumway Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5579497)
As one of the few people in this thread with actual experience with this sort of thing...

Ensuring the comfort of your children is the single strongest motivating factor for the rich. You might take my dads flavor of it “I’ll pay for all your fancy schools and help you with the down payment on your first house, but after that you’re on your own and mom and me are flying first class on a ton of vacations.”


As someone who also has some experience with this thing...

Providing a comfortable life for the children is expensive. But what really drives up the costs are (1) if you got a kid who end up marrying someone who struggles to hold a job/make money, the rich parent will step in and support the kid and the deadbeat spouse, (2) if the kids have grandkids, the rich grandparents will spend more to provide the grandkids a comfortable life too, and (3) if a kid or grandkid wants seed capital to start a business, the rich parent/grandparent will often provide the seed money. Also, the rich person will have parents, brothers/sisters, nieces/nephews who want help too, which further adds to the costs.

Other people literally want to drop a 10M pillow below their children in case they fall, and if that’s their choice we shouldn’t use tax policy to stop them. It’s just jealous revenge on the rich.


Emphasis added. Perhaps those in your world have never considered this, but there are many others who support greater taxation on the rich, not merely due to "just jealous revenge on the rich", but to use said funds to help those who are impoverished, sick, hungry, homeless, victims of abuse, or otherwise less privileged.

   247. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5579499)
BDC.

A Mary Hangley, Soprano, update: she just finished the Minnesota Opera's production of La Nozze di Figaro -- she played the Countess -- and is on break now, gearing up for Minn. Opera's spring production (I don't know what that is yet.) Over the summer, she returns to Glimmerglass with a meatier role, I'm told.
   248. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5579500)
Seriously, Clapper, I disagree with you a lot, but I generally respect your arguments. This "yearbook authenticity" one, however, is incredibly weak.

I don't believe that I have opined on the strength of the argument beyond noting that, given Moore's denials, authenticating the handwriting and approximate age of the writing would probably be the final nail in Moore's political coffin if it corroborated his accuser's story.
   249. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5579504)
Considering there are about 499 people who will never have any experience with the estate tax, but will have plenty of experiences with other taxes -- for every 1 person who does -- I am have zero moral compunction just saying tough ####....

An awful lot of things in life are not "fair". Applying a 40% tax to the first and following dollars after 5.43 million is not among the ones that would concern me, even if I agreed that it was unfair.
   250. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5579505)
Good riddance on Charlie Rose.

Still waiting for Al Franken to do the right thing and resign. Or, failing that, for the Senate to expel him.
   251. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5579506)
Clapper, #248:
I don't believe that I have opined on the strength of the argument beyond noting that, given Moore's denials, authenticating the handwriting and approximate age of the writing would probably be the final nail in Moore's political coffin if it corroborated his accuser's story.


Without the Bic, you must acquit.
   252. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5579507)
That money has already been taxed once.

I would be ok with removing the estate tax if this were true. But most times for the really rich, the assets have never been taxed. In 30 years, when Bill Gates dies and leave Microsoft shares to his kids, most of that gain has never been taxed. And not only does the money get untaxed, but they inherit it at the current price, so no tax when they sell.

Most really rich people make their money through capital gains, which has tax advantages already. Lower tax rates, offsets of losses, not taxed until sold.

If they fixed these problems- all income taxed the same, everything taxed when the person dies as if they sold it, then get rid of the estate tax.
   253. GordonShumway Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5579508)
Adding on a 4th point on my list in post #246 re: family related expenses for the rich: having a spouse, kid, or grandkid who wants to get into politics.
   254. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:33 PM (#5579509)
I don't believe that I have opined on the strength of the argument beyond noting that, given Moore's denials, authenticating the handwriting and approximate age of the writing would probably be the final nail in Moore's political coffin if it corroborated his accuser's story.


Riiiiigggghhhttttt.

I'm sure that the Mooreons would have a change of heart if the signature was validated as real. Come on. Are you that stupid? Or do you just hope the people reading you are?
   255. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5579512)
So you think the market is broken and the only way to fix it is allow large inheritances? Um, ok.


No, I think the inheritance tax should hit everyone and should extend to in-life gifts and implied income, if received after age 18. If pop pays 10K a year for your tuition at Land Grant State, that should be taxable; if he dies and leaves you 50K, that should be taxable; if he pays for Harvard or dies and leaves you $10M, that should be taxable. The aim should be to tax all intergenerational wealth transfers. The tax can be progressive, but IMO it should be the sort of thing where nearly all transfers are taxed, but the rate scales up from say 20% to 50%. That way everyone pays the government for the privilege of having the ability to transfer wealth to your children; it’s just that rich people who transfer more, pay more.
   256. Traderdave Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5579513)
I would be ok with removing the estate tax if this were true. But most times for the really rich, the assets have never been taxed. In 30 years, when Bill Gates dies and leave Microsoft shares to his kids, most of that gain has never been taxed. And not only does the money get untaxed, but they inherit it at the current price, so no tax when they sell.

Most really rich people make their money through capital gains, which has tax advantages already. Lower tax rates, offsets of losses, not taxed until sold.

If they fixed these problems- all income taxed the same, everything taxed when the person dies as if they sold it, then get rid of the estate tax.


While we might differ on the details, I generally agree with this. It would be both more fair and more efficient a scheme.
   257. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5579514)
6-4-3, #250:
Still waiting for Al Franken to do the right thing and resign. Or, failing that, for the Senate to expel him.


Especially after another New York Post Page Six bombshell emerges: Al Franken sexually molested Arianna Huffington! If you ignore that it was during photo shoot poses. Also, Huffington said the story's false. However, including her denial makes the Page Six piece balanced reporting.

The above exclusive comes with two photos, too. Speaking of two photos, one photo that Page Six hasn't run is Franken accuser Leeann Tweeden’s jovial crotch embrace of Robin Williams. A second photo which Page Six hasn't printed is this one of Al Franken victim Leeann Tweeden at another USO event three years after she was traumatized and humiliated by Franken. The photo is cropped so we don’t see her reflexively clenching her fists, the way she says she always does "every time she sees him."

The 2009 USO event Tweeden attended was to honor nine people and organizations; the night’s top honor went to Al Franken.
   258. spycake Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5579516)
I don't believe that I have opined on the strength of the argument beyond noting that, given Moore's denials, authenticating the handwriting and approximate age of the writing would probably be the final nail in Moore's political coffin if it corroborated his accuser's story.


You keep bringing it up like it's a legitimate request from the Moore camp. It's not. No analysis is going to offer 100% certainty, and the Moore camp is just looking to pounce on whatever percentage of uncertainty is left, as its next "Bernie Bernstein."
   259. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5579518)
Paying welfare to poor people - huge moral hazard. It is better for them to have to work for their money.

Paying untouched inheritance to wealthy heirs - Moral hazard? What's that?
   260. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5579519)
Also, an estate tax with loopholes a good lawyer can run a train through just penalizes people who fall juuuust over the exemption level who don’t have enough taxable wealth to justify structuring around the tax. If you think any really rich person is paying a material “true” percentage of estate tax, I have a bridge to sell you. I guess I heard that a guy I went to school with whose parents died at 50 in a car accident got ######, but that was bc it was unexpected.
   261. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5579521)
I don't believe that I have opined on the strength of the argument beyond noting that, given Moore's denials, authenticating the handwriting and approximate age of the writing would probably be the final nail in Moore's political coffin if it corroborated his accuser's story.
Setting aside whether those things are even realistic -- handwriting analysis is not exactly hard science, and this isn't exactly a big sample to work with -- I don't have any idea why you think that would finish off Moore. Hiis supporters are faith-based rather than evidence-based to begin with. They would either refuse to credit the analyst -- maybe he once posted something anti-Trump on his Facebook page, or he works for Gloria Allred so 'nuff said, or (((Soros))) or something -- or they would argue that just because he signed the yearbook doesn't prove he did anything wrong. (Which is true. At most it proves that he lied. But all they have to do is say he forgot about some random courtesy yearbook signing from 40 years ago.) People who still support him aren't going to stop absent a confession -- and maybe not even then; maybe the Swamp got to him. And even if he did it, it was a long time ago and he has repented, while Doug Jones is pro-choice.
   262. Traderdave Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5579522)
Am I a cynic to believe that Frankengate was oppo research that was held in reserve until a close Senate vote was on the line? And if that is the case, if that's the best they've got, then there isn't any worry for the Democratic Senate caucus?
   263. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5579523)
No, I think the inheritance tax should hit everyone and should extend to in-life gifts and implied income, if received after age 18. If pop pays 10K a year for your tuition at Land Grant State, that should be taxable; if he dies and leaves you 50K, that should be taxable; if he pays for Harvard or dies and leaves you $10M, that should be taxable. The aim should be to tax all intergenerational wealth transfers. The tax can be progressive, but IMO it should be the sort of thing where nearly all transfers are taxed, but the rate scales up from say 20% to 50%. That way everyone pays the government for the privilege of having the ability to transfer wealth to your children; it’s just that rich people who transfer more, pay more.


This I could get behind. That and the up thread comments about capital gains taxes.

In a world without enough capital, reduced rates for capital gains makes sense. From all appearances we currently live in a world with plenty of available capital though.
   264. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5579524)
Also, an estate tax with loopholes a good lawyer can run a train through just penalizes people who fall juuuust over the exemption level who don’t have enough taxable wealth to justify structuring around the tax. If you think any really rich person is paying a material “true” percentage of estate tax, I have a bridge to sell you. I guess I heard that a guy I went to school with whose parents died at 50 in a car accident got ######, but that was bc it was unexpected.


Huh.

Took longer than usual, but I see we've now gotten to the point of the argument where the real shame of the estate tax is those 2 people that got sent to the salt mines to work off of their debt to uncle sam because they had to pay $0.40 in taxes on their $5,450,001 inheritance.

   265. spycake Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5579526)
Regardless of political tilt, why in the world would we give that yearbook the benefit of the doubt? Producing "evidence" but not allowing it to be examined is a pretty chickenshit thing to do.


In a court of law? Sure, analyze away. In the court of public opinion? It's the Moore camp trying to plant a tiny seed of doubt, to distract from the giant forest of allegations.
   266. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:51 PM (#5579528)
Paying welfare to poor people - huge moral hazard. It is better for them to have to work for their money.

Paying untouched inheritance to wealthy heirs - Moral hazard? What's that?
Uh, sarcasm fail. In the first case, the hazard is not merely that the poor don't work, but that they stay on welfare -- which, let's not forget, is stolen money. Whereas in the latter case, it might also disincentivize work, but that's not a big problem because a wealthy person can be self-supporting without work.

(Well, your argument might work for Snapper, who thinks of work as a religious obligation, but not for people who are worried about others being self-supporting.)
   267. The Good Face Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:52 PM (#5579529)
In a court of law? Sure, analyze away. In the court of public opinion? It's the Moore camp trying to plant a tiny seed of doubt, to distract from the giant forest of allegations.


Gloria Allred has, here in her hands, documents proving, PROVING, that Roy Moore is a kiddie diddler. No, you can't see them.
   268. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:56 PM (#5579532)

Huh.

Took longer than usual, but I see we've now gotten to the point of the argument where the real shame of the estate tax is those 2 people that got sent to the salt mines to work off of their debt to uncle sam because they had to pay $0.40 in taxes on their $5,450,001 inheritance.


Dude, I'm pro estate tax. The only thing I'm anti is (1) an estate tax that only applies to the wealthy, when the underlying principles apply just as much to the middle class and (2) an estate tax riddled with loopholes so that the people who pay the most on a percentage basis aren't the wealthiest people. There's serious argument for a quasi-regressive estate tax? Because that's what you have right now. It really nails a sweetspot of married couples with around $15-20M of wealth. Perhaps those people are America's Greatest Scourge, but I doubt it.
   269. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:58 PM (#5579536)
Especially after another New York Post Page Six bombshell emerges: Al Franken sexually molested Arianna Huffington! If you ignore that it was during photo shoot poses. Also, Huffington said the story's false. However, including her denial makes the Page Six piece balanced reporting.

The above exclusive comes with two photos, too. Speaking of two photos, one photo that Page Six hasn't run is Franken accuser Leeann Tweeden’s jovial crotch embrace of Robin Williams. A second photo which Page Six hasn't printed is this one of Al Franken victim Leeann Tweeden at another USO event three years after she was traumatized and humiliated by Franken. The photo is cropped so we don’t see her reflexively clenching her fists, the way she says she always does "every time she sees him."

The 2009 USO event Tweeden attended was to honor nine people and organizations; the night’s top honor went to Al Franken.


All correct. The Huffington/Franken pictures are how adult men and women can and do act toward each other without the Internet harpies sweeping in to offer their delusional opinions on other people's business.

It's not the Maginot Line to be sure, but it's very important to the culture that the Franken Line hold. I think it will, but it very well may not.
   270. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5579537)
Uh, sarcasm fail. In the first case, the hazard is not merely that the poor don't work, but that they stay on welfare -- which, let's not forget, is stolen money. Whereas in the latter case, it might also disincentivize work, but that's not a big problem because a wealthy person can be self-supporting without work.


Stolen money? Um, nope.

In any event the impact is the same for both cases, the recipient gets money they did not work for and that changes their behavior in sub-optimal ways. You are OK with it in one case and not in another case ... because of super special reasons (stolen money!).
   271. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5579538)
Dude, I'm pro estate tax.


This was not at all clear in your initial posts. You have since clarified it, but I think much of the push back you got is from this miscommunication.
   272. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5579539)

Emphasis added. Perhaps those in your world have never considered this, but there are many others who support greater taxation on the rich, not merely due to "just jealous revenge on the rich", but to use said funds to help those who are impoverished, sick, hungry, homeless, victims of abuse, or otherwise less privileged.
As always, liberals are incredibly selfless and generous with other people's money.
   273. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5579540)
Also, I don't think you guys are correctly understanding how much intergenerational wealth transfer is in the form of implied income. Buying a house in your name and letting your kid live there; buying a car in your name and letting your kid drive it; investing in their business at quasi-arms length terms that are, in practice, well-below market, etc. That's not taxable and all a heavy estate tax does is shift assets from above board inheritance to quasi-concealed implied income. It also penalizes people whos parents die young (which is a concern that motivated the current rule that the annual gift exemption counts against the estate tax exemption).

One more thing: if this is all about moral hazard, why is the exemption flat regardless of the number of kids you have? Why can an only child inherit ~$11M of untaxed wealth (which is a shitload under any reasonable standard) while one of 3 is limited to $3.6M?
   274. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5579543)

In any event the impact is the same for both cases, the recipient gets money they did not work for and that changes their behavior in sub-optimal ways. You are OK with it in one case and not in another case ... because of super special reasons (stolen money!).
I reiterate: the impact is not the same for both cases. But you'll just ignore what I wrote in yet another failed attempt at sarcasm. In one case, the impact is that the recipient stays on welfare. In the other case, the recipient doesn't. Entirely different impacts.

It may or may not be sub-optimal for a rich person not to work; that's not self-evident. (Again, unless you're Snapper.) In contrast, it is self-evident that living on welfare is sub-optimal.
   275. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5579546)

This was not at all clear in your initial posts. You have since clarified it, but I think much of the push back you got is from this miscommunication.


My initial points were clear: I think that providing wealth for children is a strong motivator for the wealthy, and a high estate tax removes that incentive and that will have real world consequences. Any populist bullshit about the estate tax that denies that fundamental truth is going to be flawed.

But acknowledging that its really important to parents to be able to provide as much as possible for their children doesn't mean you're anti estate tax. The points about concentration of wealth are immensely powerful. And even with a high and stringent estate tax, the value of privilege is immense, so its not like rich kids are suddenly born with plastic spoons in their mouth.

However, there are LOTS of consequences to futzing with the estate tax, and designing a new tax to replace the old will require a surgeon's touch and political will that, IMO, doesn't exist. An estate tax that does nothing but encourage in-life consumption by the rich and use of tax shelters is pointless and leads to wasted wealth through inefficient consumption. (I'd also argue that an estate tax shared in part by all taxpayers will feel 'fairer' to the rich and so will encourage folks to actually pay it, rather than to shield from it - IIRC there's some evidence for that effect). A vindictive estate tax is bad policy and comes from our basest emotion - envy. The last permissible sort of prejudice in public discourse is to say the rich are evil or lazy or stupid, etc, just because they're rich.

I would be 100% behind a real estate tax that seeks to reduce the concentration of inherited wealth and improve the equality of opportunity. That should be the point of ALL of our public policy.
   276. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5579547)
Following a link from that Atlantic article posted earlier, Mark Lilla thinks that there may be something to that whole 1979 thing after all (though he says 1980).

Isaac Chotiner: What exactly is your diagnosis of what has gone wrong with liberals since the 1960s in the United States, and what were the consequences of that politically?

Mark Lilla: I would really date the break around 1980. From the New Deal up until 1980, you can think of that as one era of American politics and American liberal politics. The sort of governing ideas were solidarity, equal protection under the law, public duty, and there was a sense of the country pulling together ever since the Depression and Second World War to take care of each other.

With the arrival of Reagan, there was what I call in the book a new dispensation so that certain assumptions about what matters in politics—what can be said, what is not said, what the terms of debate are—all changed.

We went from a political vision of what we are as a country based on equal citizenship to an anti-political vision of the government being the problem, of people being solitary individuals in the market, in their families, in their churches, but without any common purpose as a nation. And at that moment, beginning in 1980, that was the moment when it was up to liberals to meet this anti-political vision of the country with a new political one that was adapted to the times and took in account all the mistakes and failures that had taken place before. We didn’t do that.
Silly modern liberals.
   277. Barnaby Jones Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5579548)
*The parents* deserve to be able to send their riches to their children.


The parents are dead. Their feelings are (a) irrelevant and (b) nonexistent.
   278. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:11 PM (#5579551)
I reiterate: the impact is not the same for both cases. But you'll just ignore what I wrote in yet another failed attempt at sarcasm. In one case, the impact is that the recipient stays on welfare. In the other case, the recipient doesn't. Entirely different impacts.


Way to argue what I am not saying. The impact is that both people act in economically sum-optimal ways. (Yes I omitted the economically last time. I thought it was understood, but I have included it now).

So yes, the impact on their behavior - which is what we are talking about - is the same. In both cases the unearned money causes behavior changes.
   279. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:12 PM (#5579553)
Dude, I'm pro estate tax. The only thing I'm anti is (1) an estate tax that only applies to the wealthy, when the underlying principles apply just as much to the middle class and (2) an estate tax riddled with loopholes so that the people who pay the most on a percentage basis aren't the wealthiest people. There's serious argument for a quasi-regressive estate tax? Because that's what you have right now. It really nails a sweetspot of married couples with around $15-20M of wealth. Perhaps those people are America's Greatest Scourge, but I doubt it.


Pick a lane.

How many estates are subject to the estate tax annually.... 5000? Fewer?

When we get to the point of arguing the rights and wrongs of a federal policy in a nation of 330,000,000 pertaining to some slim, minority subset of 5000 - you'll have to excuse the eye roll.

If you want to "go big" on taxation, then by all means. Go big. In the current schema - high level, in terms of federal revenue - the estate tax is philosophically little more than a footnote in the tax code (and yes, I'm well aware that it and related provisions/provisions to get around it add up to one damn long footnote).

Despite its extraordinarily limited application relative to total returns processed by the IRS - it actually does provide a pretty big chunk of revenue.

So by all means... we can address it and put it on the list of things worth examining.

But it belongs somewhere around item #5,450,000 on the list of items we'll be addressing.
   280. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:12 PM (#5579554)
Mark Lilla: I would really date the break around 1980. From the New Deal up until 1980, you can think of that as one era of American politics and American liberal politics. The sort of governing ideas were solidarity, equal protection under the law, public duty, and there was a sense of the country pulling together ever since the Depression and Second World War to take care of each other.

With the arrival of Reagan, there was what I call in the book a new dispensation so that certain assumptions about what matters in politics—what can be said, what is not said, what the terms of debate are—all changed.

We went from a political vision of what we are as a country based on equal citizenship to an anti-political vision of the government being the problem, of people being solitary individuals in the market, in their families, in their churches, but without any common purpose as a nation.
So, he's agreeing with me that 1979 (or 1980) was a nadir, and the country got much better after that.
   281. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:14 PM (#5579556)
How many estates are subject to the estate tax annually.... 5000? Fewer?

When we get to the point of arguing the rights and wrongs of a federal policy in a nation of 330,000,000 pertaining to some slim, minority subset of 5000 - you'll have to excuse the eye roll.
Do you feel the same way about transgender bathroom issues? That only affects some slim, minority subset.
   282. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:17 PM (#5579557)

How many estates are subject to the estate tax annually.... 5000? Fewer?

When we get to the point of arguing the rights and wrongs of a federal policy in a nation of 330,000,000 pertaining to some slim, minority subset of 5000 - you'll have to excuse the eye roll.


Don't you see the flaw in your argument? It's exactly the point I'm making. A populist estate tax that targets only a tiny number of rich people is prototypical tyranny of the majority. It's PRECISELY when we should be most concerned. If the policy affects enough people to have a democratic impact and its still supported, that's a good measure of fairness. That's why taxes are generally constructed so that the affect as many people as possible, but progressively so each pays according to the benefit they got from government. It's a way of bonding the fairness of the underlying principle for the tax.

Why not just tax 100% of the wealth from anyone with the last name Rockefeller? That only affects a slim, minority subset. So who cares?
   283. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5579560)
Do you feel the same way about transgender bathroom issues? That only affects some slim, minority subset.


The numbers google tells me say about 1.5 million people identify as transgender - or - about 300 times as many people with some manner of impact.

Besides that - yes, my level of caring gives different relative weights to someone concerned that they may be arrested/harassed/otherwise impacted by using what someone else feels is the wrong bathroom vs. someone who feels it's unfair to pay 40 cents in taxes on every dollar after the first 5,450,000 of them.

I don't know how I manage this juggling act, but I somehow I do.
   284. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5579561)
I don't know how I manage this juggling act, but I somehow I do.


stupidity and/or lack of ethics.
   285. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:23 PM (#5579562)
Good riddance on Charlie Rose.

Can't argue with that.

Still waiting for Al Franken to do the right thing and resign. Or, failing that, for the Senate to expel him.

And what's your remedy for our kitty-grabbing president? The ballot box? If so, why shouldn't that also be the remedy for Moore and Franken?
   286. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:26 PM (#5579566)
Setting aside whether those things are even realistic -- handwriting analysis is not exactly hard science, and this isn't exactly a big sample to work with -- I don't have any idea why you think that would finish off Moore. Hiis supporters are faith-based rather than evidence-based to begin with. They would either refuse to credit the analyst -- maybe he once posted something anti-Trump on his Facebook page, or he works for Gloria Allred so 'nuff said, or (((Soros))) or something -- or they would argue that just because he signed the yearbook doesn't prove he did anything wrong. (Which is true. At most it proves that he lied. But all they have to do is say he forgot about some random courtesy yearbook signing from 40 years ago.) People who still support him aren't going to stop absent a confession -- and maybe not even then; maybe the Swamp got to him. And even if he did it, it was a long time ago and he has repented, while Doug Jones is pro-choice.


You're missing the story here. The Fox News watchers literally don't care that he molested children. Yes, they'll dress their not-caring up in conspiracy theories and the like, but the core point is that they don't care. They're in a battle with the left who hates them and they've taken the gloves off. They don't care how they win. Neither side does. People are not only rooting for sports teams at this point but their self-worth is now completely wrapped up in winning -- and in seeing that their opponents are destroyed. This goes for both sides. The left supported Bill Clinton despite his behavior towards women. They didn't care. The right doesn't care anymore either.
   287. BDC Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:27 PM (#5579567)
Thanks for the update on your niece, Charlie, and best wishes to her in these coming appearances.

I ought to betake myself to Glimmerglass one of these summers, while my son is still residing near there.

But not this year. My remaining operas will be Mozart's Clemenza di Tito in Paris in a couple of weeks, and then two curiosities (Korngold's Ring of Polycrates, Van der Aa's Sunken Garden) plus Mozart's Don Giovanni, next spring in Dallas. And Puccini's Gianni Schicchi / Suor Angelica at my university. That takes me back to my childhood when it was usually the annual double bill at the theater my father helped run.

And maybe Donizetti's Don Pasquale in Fort Worth, now that I don't also have to go see Das Rheingold.
   288. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:28 PM (#5579569)
Don't you see the flaw in your argument? It's exactly the point I'm making. A populist estate tax that targets only a tiny number of rich people is prototypical tyranny of the majority. It's PRECISELY when we should be most concerned. If the policy affects enough people to have a democratic impact and its still supported, that's a good measure of fairness. That's why taxes are generally constructed so that the affect as many people as possible, but progressively so each pays according to the benefit they got from government. It's a way of bonding the fairness of the underlying principle for the tax.

Why not just tax 100% of the wealth from anyone with the last name Rockefeller? That only affects a slim, minority subset. So who cares?


Yes. When you lop an argument in half, especially when what you've lopped off is the main point - arguments do tend to become flawed.

I think the part of the argument you ignore explains why not - but in case it doesn't, I'll clarify by saying A) doing so wouldn't be enough to even service US debt in a single fiscal year and B)it would probably score disastrously awful beyond fiscal year one, post-implementation.

   289. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5579570)
When we get to the point of arguing the rights and wrongs of a federal policy in a nation of 330,000,000 pertaining to some slim, minority subset of 5000 - you'll have to excuse the eye roll.
And all told, only about $20 billion is collected, or about 0.6% of total tax revenues. Not utterly and completely trivial, but small enough that it doesn't really matter.

#280 I generally agree, but there are areas that haven't improved much, and the D's aren't helping themselves any by pursuing identity politics while neglecting to present a unified agenda that people can get behind regardless of race (which is the point of Lilla's article).
   290. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5579572)
I don't know how I manage this juggling act, but I somehow I do.


stupidity and/or lack of ethics.


I think you mean morals, since ethics are inherently social constructs.
   291. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5579573)
You're missing the story here. The Fox News watchers literally don't care that he molested children. Yes, they'll dress their not-caring up in conspiracy theories and the like, but the core point is that they don't care. They're in a battle with the left who hates them and they've taken the gloves off. They don't care how they win. Neither side does. People are not only rooting for sports teams at this point but their self-worth is now completely wrapped up in winning -- and in seeing that their opponents are destroyed. This goes for both sides. The left supported Bill Clinton despite his behavior towards women. They didn't care.


This is the post with the most projection I have ever seen and will likely ever see. Many people do care about substance. Many people do care about all of these issues. Not everyone. Some people are extremely tribal and only want their team to win.
   292. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:32 PM (#5579574)
And what's your remedy for our kitty-grabbing president? The ballot box? If so, why shouldn't that also be the remedy for Moore and Franken?

My preferred option would for them to resign/dropout as well. Or for both to eat a bullet, I don't really care. I'd just like them both gone. But obviously not holding my breath, since neither has accepted responsibility for their misdeeds.

Nate Silver penned a very good article on the day the first allegation against Franken came out: there's minimal electoral downside to him resigning with respect to the risk of losing the MN Senate seat and something to gain by standing up for principle.

But the whole "Trump is still around, so that excuses Franken having to face consequences" is rather weak logic. Either one is tolerant of sexual assault or one is not. Whether they have a (D) or (R) after their name is irrelevant, AFAIC.
   293. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:32 PM (#5579575)
You're missing the story here. The Fox News watchers literally don't care that he molested children. Yes, they'll dress their not-caring up in conspiracy theories and the like, but the core point is that they don't care. They're in a battle with the left who hates them


Why would *anyone* hate a polity that ally with pedophiles and child molesters in service of undermining the most basic principles of the republic in favor of theocratic authoritarianism? The left is so mean.
   294. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:32 PM (#5579576)

I think you mean morals, since ethics are inherently social constructs.


Yup, I meant ethics.
   295. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5579577)
And all told, only about $20 billion is collected, or about 0.6% of total tax revenues. Not utterly and completely trivial, but small enough that it doesn't really matter.


Enough to fund about 200 PBSs.

Or - enough to fund ever last TANF penny with about 2-3 billion dollars left over to settle Charlie Rose sexual harassment complaints.
   296. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5579578)
I think you mean morals, since ethics are inherently social constructs.

Yup, I meant ethics.


So it's the word "lack" that you struggle with?
   297. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5579580)
Leeann Tweeden’s jovial crotch embrace of Robin Williams.


Unless it's proven that Tweeden engaged in the same lighthearted behavior with Franken, Franken has to go.

Then, we can focus on Trump. Trump has accusers, more (so far) than have accused Franken. He's being sued by one who he called a liar. These women are just as credible as those who have accused the rest of them, Rose, Moore, Franken, Conyers, and #### them all, they all have to go, including Trump.
   298. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:37 PM (#5579581)
Nate Silver penned a very good article on the day the first allegation against Franken came out: there's minimal electoral downside to him resigning with respect to the risk of losing the MN Senate seat and something to gain by standing up for principle.
Well, there's a practical electoral downside to him resigning, which is that if he resigns, it sets a precedent for the next senator resigning, and that guy might not be in a state with a Democratic governor. If, on the other hand, he sticks it out, then the next guy can, as well.

I am not endorsing this argument since I don't think that electoral downsides ought to be primary consideration.
   299. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:44 PM (#5579584)
So it's the word "lack" that you struggle with?


The tyranny of the majority is a social construct. If you're OK with the majority exploiting the minority, then you have no conflict. It doesn't require juggling. It means you're ok with harming the minority on the other team and you look out for the minority on your team. Easy-peasy.
   300. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 21, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5579587)
I am not endorsing this argument since I don't think that electoral downsides ought to be primary consideration.

I agree, but a number of posters here (on both sides) are more concerned with the politics than anything else.

To be clear, my position: if there is compelling evidence that a political candidate or elected official has committed sexual assault, then that person should be disqualified from serving.

That such a standard might leave us without a quorum in at least one of two chambers before the midterms is not a compelling reason to ignore bad behavior.

And Democrats in the 1990s absolutely deserve condemnation for supporting Clinton as well as how his accusers were treated.
Page 3 of 12 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 11 December, 2017 - GOP strategist: Moore would have 'date with a baseball bat' if he tried dating teens where I grew up
(2277 - 10:33pm, Dec 15)
Last: PepTech

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(2016 - 10:32pm, Dec 15)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(459 - 10:21pm, Dec 15)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

NewsblogDerek Jeter Was Once the Captain. But Now He’s the Apprentice. - The New York Times
(96 - 8:57pm, Dec 15)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-15-2017
(9 - 8:48pm, Dec 15)
Last: Der-K: downgraded to lurker

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Mariners voting thread
(20 - 8:41pm, Dec 15)
Last: Omineca Greg

NewsblogA's reportedly acquire OF Stephen Piscotty
(6 - 7:13pm, Dec 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(361 - 6:41pm, Dec 15)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogWinter Meeting Signings
(29 - 6:37pm, Dec 15)
Last: charityslave is thinking about baseball

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(347 - 5:46pm, Dec 15)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogESPN: Bob Costas wins Hall of Fame's Frick Award for broadcasting
(23 - 5:02pm, Dec 15)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogMets agree to two-year deal with Anthony Swarzak
(22 - 4:52pm, Dec 15)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(717 - 3:52pm, Dec 15)
Last: GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag)

Sox TherapyA Container of Milk, A Loaf of Bread and a Dude Who Can Hit Home Runs
(30 - 2:39pm, Dec 15)
Last: jmurph

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(394 - 2:23pm, Dec 15)
Last: Fridas Boss

Page rendered in 0.6963 seconds
47 querie(s) executed